Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

SHARD BRIDGE BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BUSINESS)

Ordered,
That the Amendments to Standing Orders relating to Private Business set out in the Schedule be made.

SCHEDULE

Standing Order 1

Leave out lines 72 to 75 and insert—
`the term "water company" means a company appointed to be a water undertaker or a sewerage undertaker under Chapter 1 of Part II of the Water Act 1989'.

Standing Order 4A, as amended in 1986
Line 7, leave out 'a London borough or',
Line 16, after 'county' insert "metropolitan district or London borough'.
Line 23, after 'counties' insert 'metropolitan districts or London boroughs'.
Line 35, after 'county' insert 'metropolitan district or London borough'.
Line 38, after 'county' insert 'metropolitan district or London borough'.

Standing Order 7

Line 2, after 'specify' insert `by reference to the deposited plans'.

Standing Order 10
Line 12, after 'county' insert 'metropolitan district or London borough'.
Line 20, after 'county' insert `metropolitan district or London boroughs'.
Line 29, after 'county' insert `metropolitan district or London borough'.

Standing Order 27

Line 62, after 'Office' insert 'one copy at the Health and Safety Executive'.

Standing Order 29

Line 6, leave out from 'thereon' to 'shall' in line 8.

Standing Order 32

Line 11, leave out from 'the' to 'and' in line 12 and insert 'principal regional office of the National Rivers Authority for the area containing the river or estuary affected'.

Standing Order 33

Line 4, leave out 'which is subject to the jurisdiction of a water authority'.
Line 9, leave out `office of that authority' and insert 'principal regional office of the National Rivers Authority for the area containing the river affected'.

Standing Order 36, as amended in 1986

Line 11, at end insert 'with the proper officer of the district'.

Standing Order 37

Line 8, at end insert 'and another at the Department of the Environment'.

Standing Order 39

Line 18, leave out from beginning to 'at' in line 19.

Standing Order 42
Line 3, leave out `within the area of any water authority'.
Line 7, leave out 'office of the authority' and insert 'principal regional office of the National Rivers Authority for the area containing the water course affected'.

Standing Order 43

Line 7, leave out from 'the' to 'and' in line 8 and insert `principal regional office of the National Rivers Authority for the area containing the river or estuary affected'.

Standing Order 45
Line 2, leave out from 'Office' to end of line 11.
Line 12, leave out from first 'bill' to second 'in' in line 13.
Line 16, after 'estimate' insert 'signed by the person making the same'.
Line 19, leave out from beginning to 'and' in line 21. Line 33, leave out subsection (4).

Standing Order 46

That the Standing Order be repealed.

Standing Order 64

Line 17, after 'that' insert—
`(i) failure to comply with the requirements of Standing Order 62 (Consents of proprietors of statutory companies promoting bills originating in this House) or Standing Order 63 (Consents of members of registered companies, etc, promoting bills originating in this House) as applied by this Standing Order shall affect only such provisions as aforesaid, and shall not affect any other provisions of the Bill: and
(ii) that'.

Standing Order 99

Line 1, leave out 'water authority or other'.

Standing Order 155

That the Standing Order be repealed.

Standing Order 156

That the Standing Order be repealed.

Standing Order 156A

Line 6, leave out from 'might' to 'under' in line 7 and insert 'be taken into account in determining the sums payable by way of Revenue Support Grant'.

Standing Order 156B

That the Standing Order be repealed.

Standing Order 159

That the Standing Order be repealed.

Standing Order 162

That the Standing Order be repealed.

Standing Order 191
Line 7, at end insert—
'(c) any community charge, or the non-domestic rate; or'.
Line 8, leave out 'Rate' and insert 'Revenue'.

Standing Order 198
Line 7, at beginning insert 'In the case of a bill originating in this House'.
Line 9, leave out from 'time' to end of line 13.

Standing Order 235

Line 6, at end add 'and no Petitions other than those so deposited shall be received'.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

CITY OF DUNDEE DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

ZETLAND MASONIC SICK AND WIDOWS AND ORPHANS FUND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

United States of America

Mr. Jim Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to visit the United States of America to discuss American-European relations.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I have no firm plans for my next visit to the United States. I am in frequent touch with Mr. Baker, and last met him in New York on 2 October during the meeting of CSCE Ministers.

Mr. Marshall: Does the Foreign Secretary agree with his American counterpart that, in the light of the end of the cold war in Europe, NATO is increasingly likely to become a political rather than a military alliance? If so, what steps does he intend to take to further that change?

Mr. Hurd: Those steps were clearly set out at the July NATO summit held in London. We set out the military essentials of the alliance. We—and, of course, the Americans and all the allies—intend to maintain the integrated command, the presence of substantial American troops on the continent of Europe and a sensible mix of nuclear and conventional weapons. We then went on to illustrate the change, in particular by holding out the hand of co-operation to eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.

Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend go a little further? Does he realise that the North Atlantic Assembly is the only governmentally accepted body where American members of Congress and European Members of Parliament can meet? Although much consideration is being given to the military structure, the future of a body in which American members of Congress, Canadian Members of Parliament and European members can get together is of the greatest importance and is worthy of serious consideration.

Mr. Hurd: I know the importance of the Atlantic Assembly and the part that my hon. Friend plays in it. I certainly agree that such contacts, forming part of the political side of NATO's work, are extremely important.

Mr. John D. Taylor: As the IRA has extended its activities into many countries of the European Community, and as much of its funding comes from the United States—some of its blood money was probably used this morning in the atrocious attack on the Royal Irish Rangers in Newry and on another regiment in Londonderry, which no doubt the Foreign Secretary will take the opportunity to condemn—has the Foreign Secretary ever raised the question of funding by Americans for the IRA in Europe?

Mr. Hurd: Of course, I condemn this morning's tragic events in Newry and in Londonderry. We have often raised this point. When I was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I raised it when I visited the United States. The present Administration and the Reagan Administration before them, have taken as strict a line as


they can within United States law to ensure that such contributions are not given in a way that could help the outrages about which the right hon. Gentleman is concerned. I agree that we need to keep those reminders constantly before the United States.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that relations between America and Europe could be seriously undermined because of the failure of the EEC to put forward realistic proposals on agricultural expenditure? Does it worry my right hon. Friend, as Foreign Secretary, that, despite all the pleas that were made for strong action, the EEC is planning a substantial increase in its agricultural spending next year and that, once again, food mountains are growing to all-time highs?

Mr. Hurd: Yes, indeed. I made the first point strongly to my colleagues in Luxembourg on Monday. It is not sensible for the European Community and its leaders to suppose that they will attract much credibility when talking about economic and monetary union or, indeed, political union if they cannot produce a reasonable offer for the GATT negotiations. At the moment, the European Community is isolated. I believe that when examined at the negotiating table, the American offers will prove to have a good deal of fustian in them, but we cannot examine them at the negotiating table until we have a position of our own.

Mr. Kaufman: When replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall), the right hon. Gentleman referred with approval to the declaration made at the July NATO summit, which the Prime Minister signed. Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that in that declaration NATO endorsed a new NATO strategy making nuclear forces
truly weapons of last resort",
and that those are the words of President Bush himself? Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why, in her speech in Helsinki on 30 August the Prime Minister said:
Our first task is in reality to preserve the essentials of the present order. That means … continuing to station nuclear weapons in Europe, without putting new constraints on them such as … 'weapons of last resort'"?
As the Prime Minister signed that declaration and as she has disgracefully repudiated it, will the Foreign Secretary now uphold President Bush and repudiate the Prime Minister?

Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman has earned his reputation for selective quotation. He omitted—[Interruption.] I see that some of his text is highlighted, but I am not sure whether that is the bit that he left in or the bit that he left out. I recall clearly our discussions at Lancaster house on this point and the balancing sentences and phrases that were used to safeguard the position of the Alliance. One thing that it must preserve is a sensible mix of nuclear and conventional weapons.

Middle Fast

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to meet the Foreign Minister of Israel to discuss the middle east peace process.

Ms. Primarolo: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to visit Israel to discuss the middle east peace process.

Mr. Hurd: I met the Israeli Foreign Minister on 16 October. We had a thorough discussion of middle eastern issues. I have no firm plans to meet Mr. Levy again, but we agreed to stay in closer contact in future.

Mr. Marshall: Did my right hon. Friend congratulate the Israeli Government on their actions in deactivating the Basra reactor? Without that action, the bloodthirsty butcher of Baghdad would have been able to threaten the whole world with a nuclear disaster.

Mr.Hurd: I take my hon. Friend's point, but I am not sure that the world would be a safer place if everybody acted as Israel did in that respect. Nevertheless, I take note of what I believe is my hon. Friend's point for the future. Iraq has obligations of great importance under the non-proliferation treaty and it is of crucial interest to the whole community—not just to Israel—that those obligations should be respected.

Ms. Primarolo: Given the disastrous results of the Foreign Secretary's attempts to clarify the Government's position with regard to the Palestinian problem when he was in Jerusalem recently, will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to make a clear and unambiguous statement to Parliament on the Government's commitment to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state on the west bank and the Gaza?

Mr. Hurd: As the hon. Lady knows, we have never had such a commitment. What we are saying and have said for a long time is that the Palestinians have the right to self-determination and that that right can be exercised only in the context of a negotiated settlement, which must also include provision for the security of Israel within secure borders. That has been the position for a long time, and I restated it in Jerusalem. I am sorry that, for one reason or another, the way in which it came out prevented Palestinian leaders from meeting me a week ago as I had hoped. That would have balanced my visit to Israel.

Mr. Sumberg: When my right hon. Friend met the Israeli Government did he raise with them the horrendous and appalling massacre of hundreds of Lebanese Christians by the Syrian army? If he did not, will he join me in inviting the United Nations to pass a resolution condemning that outrage to prove to the world and the parties in the middle east that it is not the one-sided, biased organisation that it sometimes appears to be?

Mr. Hurd: We made it clear with regard to the killings on Temple Mount, the later killings in Jerusalem, and what happened in the Lebanon, that we condemn all acts of violence of that nature. They are separate problems and neither will be resolved by political violence.

Mr. Janner: After his visit to Israel, does the right hon. Gentleman feel that he now has a better understanding of the legitimate sensitivities and anxieties of that democratic country? If Britain is to help in the peace process, it must be seen to be even-handed and balanced. That means continuing its opposition to the Arab boycott. If he believes that that is right, will he speak to the Secretary of State for Energy about the reported compliance of National Power with that boycott, which I am sure he would regard as intolerable?

Mr. Hurd: One of the purposes of my visit to Israel was to get into close touch with not only Israeli Ministers but


people such as Mr. Peres and Mayor Kollek. Israel is a democratic society and I hope that within the democratic debate in Israel there is a growing realisation that its security cannot satisfactorily rest on a regime of occupation. It is neither a just nor a sustainable basis for the security of Israel, about which Israelis, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, are rightly anxious and sensitive.
On the hon. and learned Gentleman's second point, we deplore boycott efforts and campaigns of that nature. How specific British enterprises respond to them is not a matter for me.

Mr. Adley: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the presence of the Iraqis in Kuwait is totally unacceptable, as is the presence of the Israelis in parts of the Lebanon, Syria and Jordan?

Mr. Lawrence: Jordan?

Mr. Adley: Yes, in parts of Jordan. The presence of both forces is unacceptable for exactly the same reasons—[Interruption.] My hon. Friends have had their say and now they should let someone else have theirs. They are in defiance of the United Nations resolutions against invading and occupying the territory of their neighbours. Will my right hon. Friend also confirm my understanding of the position? The reason why we, the Americans and others are in Saudi is that we were invited there by the Saudi Government, in the same way as the Syrians are in the Lebanon because they were invited there by the Lebanese Government. Am I correct in that assumption?

Mr. Hurd: The right answers to both the problems which my hon. Friend mentioned have been set out in Security Council resolutions. In the case of Kuwait the resolutions are very clear because they respond to a clear act of aggression and require the unconditional withdrawal of Iraqi troops. In the case of Arab-Israel, another set of Security Council resolutions, in particular Nos. 242 and 338, require the sensible reconciling of Israel's need for security—a particularly sensitive matter because of its geography and recent history—and the right of the Palestinians to self-determination. Those two things must be reconciled. They can be reconciled only through negotiations for a comprehensive settlement.
It is not sensible to draw too many exact comparisons between the positions in Syria and Kuwait but my hon. Friend is right that originally, whatever one's view of their later activities, the Syrians went into Lebanon at the request of the Lebanese Government.

Romania

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Government of Romania about the development of democracy there.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. William Waldegrave): Neither I nor my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs plans to visit Romania at present. However, I hope that Ministers will be able to discuss economic matters with the Romanian deputy Prime Minister in the United Kingdom next month. My right hon. Friend discussed Romania's troubled progress towards democracy with his Romanian counterpart in New York on 2 October.

Mr. Flynn: Despite 40 years of paranoid tyranny and the many betrayed hopes of the past nine months, will the Government now respond to the genuine encouraging trends in Romania with the first prosecutions of the miners who participated in the June repression and the fact that recent opposition demonstrations have not been harassed? Is not there a grave danger, however, that unless we take action now and acknowledge in a practical way the advances that have been made to the flawed but genuine democracy of Romania, we shall give encouragement to those sinister forces seeking to recreate the country's previous isolation?

Mr. Waldegrave: I certainly agree that we must reward the steps forward, but we must not ignore those things that are still going wrong. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that we and our European colleagues were right to sign a trade agreement with Romania. However, we are holding back from further steps because there is evidence of further secret police activity of the old style and of the harassment of dissidents. I spoke to Doina Cornea about that when we met recently. It is a policy of carrots and sticks and both, I am afraid, are still necessary.

Mr. Aitken: Does my right hon. Friend agree that whole-hearted political and economic co-operation with the Government of Romania will be difficult as long as that Government appear to have a less than healthy commitment to human rights and freedoms? Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is still a great deal of fear among the ordinary people of Romania that the secret police, the Securitate, are still up to their old tricks? Have we made it clear enough to President Iliescu and his Government that we want to see further progress towards a truly free society before there is real co-operation?

Mr. Waldegrave: I believe that we have made that pretty clear. The Romanians are anxious to present the progress that they have made in as clear a manner as possible. As I said to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), we must not forget that other things still need a great deal of improvement. The meetings that we were able to have in Bournemouth with a number of principal dissidents under Ceausescu warned us that, as yet, all is far from being in order.

AIDS

Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent conferences on the international aspects of AIDS have been attended by Ministers or officials; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): Officials have attended eight conferences on AIDS issues this year. AIDS is a global threat, and international co-operation is required to control its spread. Our strategy is highly regarded internationally, and we play a leading role in international meetings on the subject.

Mr. Kirkwood: It is reassuring to hear that officials are being sent to attend those important international gatherings, but does the Minister accept that ministerial involvement is also important? He should pay particular attention to the worrying increase in the number of AIDS cases in the heterosexual community, particularly those


cases that have been contracted as a result of foreign travel. What will Ministers do in future to ensure that business men and holiday makers are given the proper information that they need to protect themselves?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: This is a very important matter, and ministerial involvement is constant. With regard to the spread of AIDS through heterosexual contacts by travellers abroad, the World Health Organisation runs co-ordinated national AIDS programmes in almost every country and has published a booklet, "AIDS Information For Travellers", which is widely available.

Mr. Tredinnick: I support what the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) said. I have just come from a meeting of the all-party group on AIDS and the key message that we must get across is the danger faced by the heterosexual community. Given the worrying figures already mentioned, will my hon. Friend undertake to consider ways in which to increase awareness of the dangers in that community?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Of course. We are very much aware of the increase in AIDS in the heterosexual community. I shall certainly undertake to reconsider these matters to see whether there are any further initiatives that we can take.

Mr. Corbyn: AIDS is a terrifying problem which has serious implications—the likely death of millions of people throughout the world. What support has been given to WHO so that the spread of AIDS in other countries can at least be combated by publicity and that research done in Britain and the United States can be shared with the poorer countries, which are suffering just as badly, if not worse than ourselves, from the problem of AIDS?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The World Health Organisation is leading the action against AIDS. The United Kingdom is the third largest donor and we have pledged £16·83 million so far.

German Unification

Mr. Knapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions are taking place within the European Community regarding the implications of German unification for weighted majority voting in the Council of Ministers and for the size of the European Parliament.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Garel-Jones): None, Sir.

Mr. Knapman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who will be aware that weighted majority voting in the Council of Europe bears little relationship to the populations of the countries involved. However, we now hear that following unification, both the Chancellor and the Foreign Minister in Germany have said that they do not require any increased representation "for the time being." May I take it from my hon. Friend that his reply "none" is 100 times more encouraging than "none for the time being"?

Mr. Garel-Jones: The German Government undertook not to request EC treaty amendments to accommodate German unification. They have made no proposals to amend qualified majority vote weighting or the number of Members of the European Parliament, both of which would require treaty amendment. But, as my hon. Friend

says, it is clear that a number of small member countries, with Luxembourg a prime example, have made a not able contribution to the Community despite their size.

Mr. Trimble: Although we must welcome the extension of the Community by the inclusion of what was, before this October, a separate country, is not it inappropriate that the other countries of central Europe that experienced similar democratic revolutions and are at a similar economic stage—Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Poland—should be kept out of the Community while the former German Democratic Republic is allowed in?

Mr. Garel-Jones: There is no intention on behalf of the Government or the Community to keep anyone out of the Community. The Prime Minister has made it clear that we would welcome the day when those new, emerging democracies in the east are in a position, because of their internal politics and their economies, to apply to join the Community.

Mr. Soames: I warmly welcome my hon. Friend to his new position. Is it likely that such matters will be discussed at the intergovernmental conference and what position will Her Majesty's Government take?

Mr. Garel-Jones: There is no reason why those matters should arise in the intergovernmental conference. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his warm welcome.

Mr. Skinner: Was the Minister of State in favour of weighted voting when he was Deputy Chief Whip?

Mr. Garel-Jones: As the hon. Member will know, in those days I was in favour of hon. Members supporting their party—a lesson that he might take.

Eastern Europe

Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to meet the European Community Foreign Affairs Ministers to discuss aid to eastern Europe.

Mr. Waldegrave: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State regularly meets his European Community colleagues to discuss the Community's relations with the countries of central and eastern Europe. We strongly support the Community's policy of making aid to those countries conditional on progress towards political and economic reform.

Mr. Coombs: Although I recognise the vital importance of aid, in terms of trade credits and direct aid, to eastern European countries and the importance of exchanges of personnel through seminars and courses, is not it equally important to set up educational institutions, such as business schools, in eastern European countries so that people there can learn the sort of commercial skills that they will need in a newly competitive world? Will he ensure that the know-how fund is used to that end?

Mr. Waldegrave: There have been some such projects under the know-how fund. In general, it is better to try to develop institutions in the countries involved rather than bring them here, which is what they ask for on the whole.

Mr. Madden: Will the Minister acknowledge that it would be daft for Britain to provide aid to eastern Europe if that would result in the displacement of British jobs,


particularly in the textile and clothing industry? Therefore, will he take this opportunity to acknowledge, on behalf of the Government, that they do not regard the British textile and clothing industry as expendable and that there is absolutely no question of the multi-fibre arrangement being abandoned or phased out too quickly unless proper and adequate safeguards are put in place to protect the best interests of the textile and clothing industry and the British workers whose livelihoods depend on it?

Mr. Waldegrave: Similar arguments can be made in relation to every sector of the economy where we are trying to liberalise trade with the rest of the world—for example, agriculture. There must be some respect in which, if we are serious about opening our markets to poorer countries, we are willing to stand against our sectoral interests sometimes.

Mr. William Powell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that last week I had the opportunity of visiting the headquarters of the Stasi in east Berlin? Is not it perfectly clear that the Stasi hopes to return to power by establishing massive slush funds at home and abroad? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that when he talks to Community Ministers he discusses the recycling of looted Stasi funds into aid to eastern Europe?

Mr. Waldegrave: However much money was deployed by former members of the Stasi, I do not think that they would return to power in a democratic society.

Mr. Robertson: Does not Britain set a particularly bad example on this in the EC? The Prime Minister and other Ministers perambulate around Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Poland promising all sorts of help, but is not the sad reality that the total amount of know-how help for central and eastern Europe in this financial year adds up to £15 million, that all of it is already committed and that, despite the growing demand, desire and need for it, no new projects can possibly be sanctioned before April next year? Does not that show up Tory concern for the new democracies as the sanctimonious propaganda that we all know it to be?

Mr. Waldegrave: The answer is no. There is still no parallel among other European countries for the know-how fund and I welcome the fact that the rapid spread of democratic and free enterprise societies in eastern Europe has meant that we can move much quicker than expected this year, and negotiations are already under way for next year. Such help has been far more effective than the huge generalised soft loans, many of which have not been taken up, which hit the headlines but do little good.

Mr. Rathbone: Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that contributions of know-how and other non-financial kinds are being co-ordinated in the same way as financial contributions within the EC?

Mr. Waldegrave: Yes, we try to do that, but I am sure that there is always room for co-ordination to be improved. Our view has always been that if we have a good project we should back it first and try to co-ordinate later, rather than be too bureaucratic.

Ethiopia

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement about the peace process in Ethiopia.

Mr. Waldegrave: As a result of recent contacts in the United States, there is a prospect that the negotiations between the Ethiopian Government and the Eritrean People's Liberation Front may resume.

Mr. Bennett: Given all the talk about a new world order, does the Minister agree that that new world order should try to inject some urgency into peace negotiations within Ethiopia, because until peace is established within Ethiopia there is little hope of effective aid reaching the large numbers of people now starving in Government-held areas and in areas held by the various liberation fronts? Will the Government use all their offices to get some action, rather than simply talking about talks?

Mr. Waldegrave: I agree with the link that the hon. Gentleman makes between the establishment of peace and effective aid. Until there is peace, there will never be an end to the hunger crisis in that country. The principal responsibility must lie with the warring factions, who too often in recent years have seen the mirage of a military victory and therefore broken off negotiations again, but it is somewhat more encouraging that they are talking again.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Does not my right hon. Friend consider the disastrous situation in Ethiopia to be yet another example, in economic and human terms, of Marxism in action?

Mr. Waldegrave: Certainly the Ethiopian Government have had a terrible record in the past both on human rights and in the competence of their economic and social doctrines. They are now jettisoning those doctrines very fast, which gives some hope for progress.

EC Intergovernmental Conference

Mr. Sillars: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress he is making in preparation for the intergovernmental conference in December, with particular reference to the issue of political union.

Mr. Hurd: I attended the Foreign Affairs Council on 22 October, which discussed preparations for the intergovernmental conference on political union. The Italian presidency will report on progress to the special European Council—the summit—on 27 and 28 October. Our aim continues to be a more efficient, effective and democratically accountable Community.

Mr. Sillars: Has the Secretary of State read reports of the rather bad-tempered presentation at the European Parliament yesterday of the Commission's document on political union, which will ultimately go before the intergovernmental conference? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the document confirms that, as the Community was established by international treaties agreed by sovereign states, it is perfectly possible to deepen and widen its integration and to create greater cohesion


without crucially altering its legal basis? Does not the Commission's document point to the model for the future being not federalist but confederalist?

Mr. Hurd: I have not read the Commission document, but Mr. Delors outlined it at the Foreign Affairs Council meeting on Monday. Having heard that outline, and subject to my studying the document, I do not believe that it offers a way forward that my Government would want to follow. In all the discussions in the intergovernmental conferences beginning in December on economic and monetary union and political union, we shall be arguing—for example, in the GATT round—about many of the issues confronting the Community. We shall argue not from an un-European or anti-European stance, but for a Europe that is liberal and open. There will be considerable discussion of those points.

Mr. Haselhurst: What specific gains does my right hon. Friend think will emerge from the intergovernmental discussions? Would not it be helpful to Britain if they could be clearly explained ahead of the meeting, rather than merely expressing a generalised commitment to a better Community?

Mr. Hurd: I tried to offer such an explanation when the House debated that subject in the summer. The gains can be easily summarised. We want to improve co-ordination between the Twelve on foreign policy and the role of national parliaments—including that of working together in controlling and monitoring the Council's activities. We want to improve also the work of the European Parliament, not by extending its legislative powers but by encouraging it to be more effective in monitoring and invigilating the Commission's work and expenditure. We should like to find a sensible definition of subsidiarity which would establish clearly where Community action is necessary, and what action should best be left to national Governments—particularly as it is national Governments who decide among themselves what the role of the Community should be, and not the Community which decides the role of national Governments.

Mr. Maclennan: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear at the intergovernmental conference that it is no part of the Government's policy to countenance a two-speed Europe, with Britain on the outside track, which would be a disaster for our country?

Mr. Hurd: It would be a disaster not only for this country but for Greece, where I discussed the matter last week, for Portugal, for Spain, and for many other countries. I hope very much that those in charge of the discussions on economic and monetary union in particular will bear that point in mind. It is most important that we travel at a speed and in a direction which commands consensus.

Mr. Favell: Can my right hon. Friend say yet what the Government's attitude will be if the 11 other members of the Community accept the Delors proposals?

Mr. Hurd: The Delors proposals deal with economic and monetary union, which is beyond the scope of the question. As to the intergovernmental conference on political union, there can be no change to the treaty unless all 12 member states agree.

CSCE Summit

Mr. Atkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the forthcoming CSCE summit in Paris.

Mr. Waldegrave: My right hon. Friend will attend the CSCE summit in Paris. We envisage that a conventional forces in Europe agreement will be signed. The conference should consolidate the recent progress in Europe by strengthening democratic and economic reforms. We believe that the rights won in the reforms should be enshrined in a magna carta for Europe.

Mr. Atkinson: Given that all but three of the European CSCE participating states now send parliamentary delegations to the Council of Europe and that the remaining three—Romania, Bulgaria and Albania—expect to do so shortly, does my right hon. Friend agree that next month's summit need look no further for its proposed assembly of Europe, as suggested by the NATO summit in July, than to the existing Council of Europe? Will he ensure that the Government put that proposal forward at next month's summit?

Mr. Waldegrave: The problem is that the United Stales and Canada are participants. I go this far with my hon. Friend—the infrastructure of the Council of Europe may well provide the basis on which a new assembly could meet, but we must pay attention to the importance of maintaining American participation in these meetings.

Mr. Wareing: Is it not the proposal of the chairman of CSCE that the European assembly from the Atlantic to the Urals should be a completely separate assembly? What efforts will the Government make at the next summit to ensure that there is a coming together, which I believe that the people of this country and of Europe will see as a positive step towards the unification of Europe in ways other than the old-fashioned ideas of the EEC?

Mr. Waldegrave: I think that the hon. Gentleman is right that we should not proliferate entirely new assemblies, and if we can build on what already exists in a way that is acceptable to the north Atlantic partners, that is very sensible.

Palestinian Refugees

Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made during the past three months about Palestinian refugees to the Government of Israel.

Mr. Waldegrave: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State discussed the situation in the occupied territories, including conditions in the Palestinian refugee camps there, with members of the Israeli Government during his recent visit to the middle east.

Mr. Pawsey: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. He will be aware of the great concern in all parts of the House about recent events in occupied Palestine. The intifada goes on; the violence continues. Does not he therefore believe that it is now time for a major international conference to be convened, possibly under the auspices of the United Nations, to discuss the occupied territories and the refugee problem?

Mr. Waldegrave: We have always made it clear that at the right time an international conference will probably be necessary to help to produce the comprehensive settlement that my right hon. Friend spoke of earlier. I do not think that the time is yet right for that, unfortunately, and we continue to urge that contacts be built up between the Palestinians and the Israeli Government in the way they appeared to be about to begin to do before the present crisis in the Gulf.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to confirm to the Israeli Government that the United Kingdom Government's position is that east Jerusalem is occupied territory, and therefore that the provisions of the fourth Geneva convention on the protection of civilian persons in time of war apply absolutely and without exception? Will he also confirm that Israel's purported annexation of east Jerusalem is illegal and as such has no effect on the status of east Jerusalem as occupied territory; and that any measures that Israel purports to take to change the status of east Jerusalem are null and void?

Mr. Waldegrave: That is the position of the British Government, yes.

Mr. Lawrence: Is not it strange that Israel's oil-rich Arab neighbours have never thought it right to improve the standard of living of their Arab brothers in the refugee camps?

Mr. Waldegrave: That is rather unfair. One of the many legitimate accusations against Saddam Hussein is that his invasion of Kuwait has destroyed a country which was generous in its support of the Palestinian people. The consequences of that, and of the loss of remittances from Palestinian workers in Kuwait and elsewhere, are now causing even more problems for already hard-pressed people in the occupied territories.

Miss Hoey: In view of the news this morning that the occupied territories have once again been completely closed off by the Israeli Government, and given what we know that the Israeli Government are prepared to do when they are in public view, will the Minister take this opportunity to call the Israeli ambassador to the Foreign Office and insist that the occupied territories be open at the very least to the United Nations observers, who are not even allowed to go in and see the way in which people in the refugee camps are treated?

Mr. Waldegrave: We have made it clear that the Secretary-General's mission, which the United Nations has been attempting to send, should be received in Israel. We deplore the continuing cycle of violence described by the hon. Lady. It is our belief—a belief that I believe is held on both sides of the House—that no amount of military action against the Palestinians will suppress their desire for self-determination. The sooner the Israelis accept that, the more chance that there is of the two peoples living together in peace.

Mr. Conway: Is my hon. Friend aware of some of the excellent work to help physically and mentally handicapped children that is going on in some of the Palestinian refugee camps? If he is not, will he take the opportunity to find out about it to see whether we can do more to help that work?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am aware of the work, and my right hon. Friend is up to date on it as he visited one of those projects. I saw other work of this kind when I was in Gaza. Like the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East and other countries, we support this valuable work. I particularly mention the work at St. John's eye hospital, which has become excellent in dealing with the kind of injuries suffered in such situations.

Europe-USA Relations

Mr. Nicholas Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to meet the United States Secretary of State to discuss European-American relations.

Mr. Garel-Jones: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State expects to meet Secretary Baker in November when they are due to sign a declaration on EC-United States relations at the CSCE summit in Paris.

Mr. Brown: When the Foreign Secretary meets representatives of the American Government, will he discuss the question of burden sharing—something on which the Americans are quite keen—in the context of the Gulf crisis? Having discussed it with the Americans, will he then dicuss the same issue with his Cabinet colleagues and get from them some intervention in those parts of the country, particularly my constituency, where substantial contracts with Iraq have been lost as a result of sanctions and major redundancy rounds have ensued? This is a problem that affects the north-east and Scotland, but so far there has been no response about domestic burden-sharing from the British Government. When can we expect one?

Mr. Garel-Jones: The hon. Gentleman is right in one sense—the contribution that the United Kingdom has made to the international peace-keeping force in the Gulf is second only to that of the United States. We lose no opportunity to invite other like-minded Governments to make a contribution. The matter of what happens within the United Kingdom is not for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Will the Government continue to remind the United States not only of the need for self-determination for the Palestinian people but of their right to have their own state?

Mr. Garel-Jones: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has already answered that question, and it would not be wise for me to add anything to what he has said.

Mr. Beggs: When the Foreign Secretary meets the United States Secretary, will he take the opportunity to discuss the recent Dublin Supreme Court decision and the constitutional imperative under which Irish Governments are required to work for a united Ireland? Will he seek the support of the United States Secretary in asking the Irish Government to remove this territorial claim and thus enable compliance with the Helsinki agreement, thereby denying the IRA and terrorists any right to exist and operate?

Mr. Garel-Jones: The British Government lose no opportunity to make clear to the United States the seriousness that we attach to IRA terrorism. As to the


constitutional matter that the hon. Gentleman raised in connection with the Helsinki agreement, it would not be right for the United States to intervene in the constitution of a foreign state.

Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend recall Winston Churchill's statement that the supreme fact of the 20th century is that Britain and America have marched together upon the basis of shared values" Does he further recall that at the time of the Gulf crisis on 2 August and in the following weeks it was Britain and America who stood together to prevent Saddam Hussein from taking up the position that he would undoubtedly hold at the moment, had he been allowed to do so—that is to be in Saudi Arabia? Does he further agree that the most important action that we have to take is to encourage our European partners to play a full part in making sure that we maintain peace in the middle east?

Mr. Garel-Jones: I agree with my hon. Friend that our alliance with the United States, through NATO, must remain the mainstay of our position. That does not run counter to our wish for a closer co-ordination of security and foreign policy within the Community. My hon. Friend, however, is absolutely right, that our relationship with the United States is crucial to the United Kingdom in terms of both defence and other matters.

South Africa

Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions, and with whom, he has had about policy towards South Africa; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Waldegrave: I visited South Africa from 19 to 21 September and met a wide range of political figures, including both President de Klerk and Mr. Nelson Mandela. I was encouraged by the commitment I found on all sides to move speedily towards negotiations aimed at ending apartheid.

Mr. Canavan: Will the Minister support Nelson Mandela who warned the South African Government earlier today that unless the new South African constitution guarantees the right to vote for all black people in South Africa, the probability is that violence will continue and escalate? Will the Minister also support the efforts that are being made to arrange a meeting between Nelson Mandela and Chief Buthelezi, with a view to bringing an end to the continuing violence in the townships, where more than 700 people have been killed since the beginning of August?

Mr. Waldegrave: On the first point, I found no one among the main-line politicians in South Africa who had any doubt whatever but that the constitution must be based on one man, one vote. The hon. Gentleman need have no fears on that score. On the hon. Gentleman's second point, I strongly agree with him. When I was in South Africa I met the secretary-general of Inkatha and urged that such a meeting should take place. I hope that it takes place soon and that it leads to an end to the violence in the townships. We all want to see that.

Mr. Hind: When my right hon. Friend holds discussions with representatives of other African front-line states will he emphasise to them that a great deal of the

fighting in the townships is on a tribal basis between two groups who in the long term are seeking to have power in a future democratic South Africa? Will he urge those representatives to look in depth at the problem and see what they can do to bring the two sides together to end the fighting in the townships and hasten the march towards a free democratic South Africa?

Mr. Waldegrave: There is something in what my hon. Friend says, but it is a little more complex than that. A great deal of fighting is taking place between Zulus who are ANC members and Zulus who are Inkatha members. It is not, therefore, simply a tribal matter, although there is a tribal element to the fighting. Clearly, ruthless jockeying for political position is taking place.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the Minister aware that a South African delegation that recently saw Foreign Office officials was peddled the dangerous and disastrous line that there is no role now to be played in South Africa by external forces and that it is all down to the people inside the country? Will the Minister deny that that is the Government's position? Does he accept that there is a strong role to be played by Governments outside South Africa and that pressure must be maintained on President de Klerk to move faster towards the negotiating table rather than delaying that move, as he appears to be doing now?

Mr. Waldegrave: I profoundly disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I think that it is the ANC which is having difficulty in keeping up with the pace of movement towards negotiation. As a result of meeting external organisation representatives who over the years have honourably put a great deal of hard work into supporting the abolition of apartheid, I have the very strong feeling that they are increasingly being left behind. They often come to see me urging points of view which they believe are held by the ANC but which have already been abandoned by the ANC. I must urge that the lead being taken by major politicians in South Africa, both black and white, should continue. It is the most optimistic thing of all about South Africa at present and represents the best hope for the future.

Mr. John Carlisle: As my right hon. Friend once again expressed his disapproval of economic sanctions while he was in South Africa, will he now express the same disapproval of sports sanctions and boycotts? It is nonsense that although, with the full support of this side of the House, we rightly advocate the abandonment of economic sanctions, we still retain the sports boycott. When are we going to come out of the ridiculous Gleneagles agreement?

Mr. Waldegrave: With respect my hon. Friend is perhaps making the mirror image of the mistake made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) as there are now senior ANC spokesmen saying that the abolition of the sporting boycott is coming near. It is better to leave the joint leadership being developed between the South African Government, Inkatha, the ANC, Azapo and others to tell us about the timing on some of these things. The ANC is moving well ahead of some of its alleged external supporters on this.

Cambodia

Mr. Alan Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met representatives of the Government of China to discuss the future of Cambodia.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs discussed Cambodia with his Chinese colleague, Mr. Qian Qichen, at the United Nations General Assembly in New York on 28 September.

Mr. Williams: Will the Minister comment on continuing reports that the SAS is involved in training the Khmer Rouge to lay land mines in Cambodia? In view of the excellent reputation of John Pilger, the journalist who is making these reports, and the way he has spoken the truth about Cambodia for years, does the Minister realise that the public are horrified by the prospect that the British Government are supporting militarily the return of the Khmer Rouge?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The British Government have never given support or help of any kind to the Khmer Rouge.

Mr. Winterton: Will my hon. Friend accept that it is time that the free civilised world entered into meaningful discussions directly with the Administration in Cambodia and stopped playing around with Prince Sihanouk and the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot? That man is a tyrant and must never be allowed to set foot in the capital of Cambodia again to do what he did to the people of that wonderful country.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That man was a cruel tyrant and we condemn him. I urge my hon. Friend to recognise the work of the five permanent members of the Security Council in their new initiatives and the formation of the supreme national council which has membership from all the different leading figures in Cambodia.

Mr. Foulkes: Further to the question of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), will the Government make it clear to the Chinese Government and to the House that they will oppose the continued illegal representation of Pol Pot at the United Nations and any representative of any coalition which includes Pol Pot? Will they make it clear that in the foreign policy of the United Kingdom the genocide of the killing fields will never be forgotten?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Most certainly, the genocide of the killing fields will never be forgotten. The Cambodian seat at the United Nations is not at present occupied. The supreme national council is supported by the five permanent members of the Security Council and all the factions in Cambodia. That is the new initiative and it will be up to the supreme national council to appoint an ambassador to the United Nations.

Mr. Bowis: Does my hon. Friend agree that the interests of the people of Cambodia are not best served by exaggerations and distortions which can appear in television programmes, and nor will they be served by the return of anything which included Pol Pot and the Khmer

Rouge? Does my hon. Friend agree also that the only part of Cambodia that has any sort of normal life now is that under the control of the Phnom Penh Government? Will he do what he can to ensure that the world community recognises that and pours into that part of the country the aid and investment that is so necessary?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Britain has committed up to £2 million worth of humanitarian aid to Cambodia. The new development quite different from what prevailed in earlier months of this year is the resolution of the United Nations permanent five—supported by the United Nations General Assembly, the Hun Sen Government and all the factions in Cambodia—to make progress in discussions to form the supreme national council. We should all be pushing for that because we all wish to see an end to the suffering in that country and for those wretched people to be able to live life in peace and determine their future.

Germany

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent meetings he has had with other Foreign Ministers regarding German reunification; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Garel-Jones: On 12 September in Moscow, with his German, French, American and Russian colleagues, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs signed the treaty on the final settlement with respect to Germany. On 1 October in New York, they signed a declaration suspending four-power rights and responsibilities with effect from German unification on 3 October.
We welcome the unification of Germany in peace and freedom. We will be working with the united Germany as a friend, ally and partner for the peace and prosperity of Europe and the wider world.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that it will not be lost on the British people, who are suffering from high interest rates, rocketing unemployment and a massive trade deficit, that in the next two years, in order to carry out the German takeover, not reunification, this lousy Tory Government are to hand out £32 million of taxpayers' money to bail out shipyards in East Germany while shutting down shipyards in Sunderland and Birkenhead? The whole thing stinks to high heaven.

Mr. Garel-Jones: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman's question was reached this afternoon as it enables me to offer him an apology for suggesting that his voting record in support of his party was not what it might be. Not only did he vote against the last Labour Government more than anyone else—he also had one of the highest voting records in their favour because of his consistent attendance in the House.
As I explained to the hon. Gentleman on Friday, the cost of German unification to the United Kingdom this year will be nil, and next year it will be £32 million. That is considerably less than the British taxpayer has spent subsidising the coal industry over many years. I realise that he and many of his hon. Friends are unable to give unification the welcome that we can because they still aspire to a Trabant-owning autocracy.

Middle East

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on developments in the middle east since the emergency debate on 6 and 7 September.
In that debate, the House endorsed the Government's policy, which is that of virtually the entire international community: Saddam Hussein must leave Kuwait and the legitimate Government of Kuwait must be restored. Iraq must release our hostages.
Since the House met, at the United Nations we have applied growing pressure to Iraq. Negotiations are under way in New York for a further resolution to hold Iraq liable to pay compensation for the damage resulting from its actions, including the maltreatment of foreign nationals and property.
Sanctions have been enforced, in particular by the effective blockade by allied ships that are operating in the area. More than 100 ships from 12 countries are on constant patrol enforcing the embargo. The Royal Navy has challenged more than 1,100 vessels and has taken part in 10 boarding operations. The House will want to pay tribute to the courage and professionalism of the Royal Navy.
The United Nations must continue to tighten the screw of sanctions. We cannot relax our determination to ensure Saddam Hussein's complete and unconditional withdrawal from Kuwait. Since the House met, there have been many more examples of his tyranny. All the available evidence suggests that, far from being under strict orders to behave with discipline in Kuwait, Iraq's soldiers have been allowed complete licence. The House will be aware that many Kuwaitis who have been able to escape their occupied country have testified to wanton destruction of property and to cruel and inhuman treatment of Kuwaiti citizens, including several murders carried out in front of wives and children, rape and torture. We must remind the Iraqis once again that at all levels of authority, whether they be military or civilian, they are personally responsible under the Geneva convention for illegal acts committed as occupiers in Kuwait.
In those circumstances, one of the first concerns must be the welfare of the 800 British people still in Iraq and of the substantial British community remaining in Kuwait. In Kuwait, our embassy—now one of the last to stay open—is staffed by the ambassador and one colleague. They will continue, through the warden system, to help Britons in Kuwait as long as that is physically and practically possible.
We welcome the release of British nationals in response to the humanitarian appeal by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). But I must add that I find it grisly and repulsive that the Iraqis should set about deciding who is so sick and who is so old that he or she should be released from a position in which no human being should ever be placed and in which hundreds of human beings remain. All our nationals—all foreign nationals—should be allowed to leave Iraq. I admire the courage of those of our people who are detained or hiding in Iraq and Kuwait and of their families here. Our embassies have helped to organise the

evacuation of more than 900 women and children and we are doing what we can to ensure that those who remain in Iraq have the money and comforts that they need.
The situation is particularly agonising for families here at home. We are working closely with the Gulf Support Group to provide as much help and information as we can. We cannot work miracles, but the staff in the Foreign Office and the staff at the embassy in Baghdad are working round the clock on these problems. Where complaints have been made, we are investigating them urgently, and where there is room for improvements, we are making those improvements as quickly as we can. We should not forget that the plight of these people—of our hostages—has been caused by Saddam Hussein. It is Saddam Hussein who is playing cat and mouse with them, and the British Government and this Parliament would not wish to be blackmailed.
On the other side of the question, the United States and Britain, in particular, moved fast immediately after the invasion of Kuwait to protect Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries from the threat of attack. Since then, a unique coalition of forces from 25 countries has been established in the Gulf. On 14 September, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced the deployment of the 7th Armoured Brigade and of more Tornado aircraft. This will bring the total number of British service men committed to the Gulf to about 16,000.
I believe that President Hussein will seek to cling to the country that he has acquired by force, or perhaps to negotiate his way out so that he can claim some gain for his aggression. He has tried, and is trying, to sow disunity in the coalition ranged against him, with a variety of bogus peace plans, delaying tactics and smoke screens. One of them is his presentation of himself as the champion of the Palestinian cause. In fact, the Palestinian cause has been set back by Iraq's aggression and the credibility of the PLO has been damaged by its ambivalent—to put it politely—response to that aggression.
Some have suggested that Saddam Hussein should be persuaded to withdraw from Kuwait in exchange for an international conference on the middle east as a whole. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the other countries of the Gulf and the Government of Kuwait have all firmly rejected that suggestion—because Iraq's withdrawal must be complete and unconditional. Hon. Members and British Governments have long argued the urgent need to find a lasting settlement in the middle east—including the Arab-Israel dispute. Once Iraq is out of Kuwait, we must return to that issue. The policy of the British Government is clear. It has been restated today and was restated during my recent visit. It involves self-determination for the Palestinian people and the right of Israel to live in peace behind secure borders.
The killing of 21 Palestinians on the Dome of the Rock, or Temple Mount, on 8 October and the later murder of Israelis underlines the tragedy of the Arab-Israel dispute. The cycle of violence is now repeating itself. I hope that the Government of Israel may yet agree to accept the Secretary-General's mission to investigate those killings because to do otherwise would risk diverting the Security Council from what ought to be its main task—getting Iraq out of Kuwait—and will give Saddam Hussein a cause which he will exploit ruthlessly.
Our aim remains as it was when we debated the matter: Iraq's complete withdrawal from Kuwait and the restoration of Kuwait's legitimate Government. At a


meeting of the Kuwaiti ruling family and their people in Jeddah earlier this month, there was an impressive display of the loyalty of all Kuwaitis and of the unity which the crisis has produced. The Kuwaitis announced at the conference their intention, when the legitimate Government is restored, to implement in full the 1962 democratic constitution. Many will welcome that decision which was taken freely by Kuwaitis.
In the meantime, the pressures on Saddam Hussein remain diplomatic isolation, the economic blockade and the threat of forcible expulsion from Kuwait. Saddam Hussein has a simple choice—retreat or defeat. The Government and the House strongly hope that the restoration of Kuwait will be achieved without further bloodshed, but the daily destruction of Kuwait and the murder of its people continue. We are tightening the screw of the peaceful pressures, but we cannot shirk our part in the alternative course if that course finally becomes necessary.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I am glad that the Foreign Secretary confirms that the Government continue to share the objective that we in the Labour party also uphold: that all the United Nations Security Council resolutions on Kuwait must be implemented and that Iraq must withdraw from Kuwait unconditionally.
Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the first of those resolutions, No. 660, provides for negotiations between Iraq and Kuwait to resolve their differences, but that those negotiations can take place only once Iraq has withdrawn unconditionally from Kuwait and the hostages have been unconditionally released? We are glad that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) has been able to bring home some hostages with him from Baghdad. However, I share the Foreign Secretary's view that it is a degrading spectacle to witness Saddam Hussein haggling and bargaining over misery that he has created.
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that unconditional withdrawal by Iraq from Kuwait does not mean partial withdrawal and cannot be conditional on a change of Government in a freed Kuwait? The internal government of Kuwait is a matter for the Kuwaiti people and we welcome the indication of greater democracy in a free Kuwait.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that it is our objective that sanctions should achieve the liberation of Kuwait, with force an option to be invoked by the international community only if there is clear evidence over a sufficient period that sanctions cannot achieve that United Nations objective? Will he confirm that there should be clear United Nations authority if force was to be invoked and that that authority must be obvious not simply to legalists invoking article 51 of the United Nations charter, but to the judgment of the world community? In that connection, will the Secretary of State explain what he meant on BBC radio on Sunday when he said in connection with the possible invocation of article 51:
We have requests from the Government of Kuwait"?
It is important that the Secretary of State clarifies what he meant by those words.
Will the Foreign Secretary, on behalf of the United Kingdom in the Security Council, lay stress on the

implementation of existing resolutions rather than be tempted to pursue distractions such as war crimes trials, which are neither relevant nor pertinent at this stage?
Does the Foreign Secretary accept that I do not join those who criticise him for having gone to Israel, as I believe that it is essential that all possible efforts be made to resolve this tragic and increasingly lethal conflict? The Opposition condemn the shootings by Israeli security forces on Temple Mount the week before last. We deplore the killing of other Palestinians and also of Israelis in recent weeks. Did the Secretary of State tell the Israeli Government that the use of live ammunition to deal with disturbances is not only wrong, but, as the former Labour Prime Minister and Defence Minister, Mr. Rabin, has said, ineffectual as a means of quelling such disturbances? Will the Secretary of State continue to emphasise that, if others are expected to observe Security Council resolutions, Israel cannot ignore them?
Did the Secretary of State meet leaders of the Israeli Labour party? They represent the other Israel—the Israel that advocates receiving the Secretary-General's mission, the Israel that wants to talk to the Palestinians and to trade land for peace, and the Israel that accepts that the Palestinians must have the right of self-determination and that that right does not exclude a state.
The Secretary of State says that he was misrepresented in Israel about this attitude to a Palestinian state. Will he therefore take this opportunity, which he did not take in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) at Question Time, to state with the utmost clarity the Government's attitude on a Palestinian state? Does self-determination include or exclude the right of the Palestinians to choose a state?
Will the Foreign Secretary endorse the wise words yesterday of Teddy Kollek, the Labour mayor of Jerusalem? He said that security and peace can come about only through peace negotiations. Mr. Kollek declared:
When there is not even a faint light at the end of the tunnel, there is despair.
Finally, does the Foreign Secretary agree that everyone killed in Israel and the occupied territories—Arab and Jew, Israeli and Palestinian—is paying the unacceptable price of the failure to advance the peace process, and that anyone who refuses to participate in that peace process must accept a share of responsibility for those deaths?

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. He stated exactly the position that we all take. It is a great strength to our foreign policy and to the Foreign Secretary that, on all the basics throughout these anxious months, there has been a degree of national consensus. I confirm in particular that partial withdrawal, such as is floated from time to time, perhaps through misinformation from the Iraqis or by people of misguided goodwill, is not acceptable.
I confirm also that our aim is to increase pressures, including the pressure of sanctions, and to review the effect of those pressures before there is any question of the military option, the existence and importance of which the right hon. Gentleman also endorsed.
On 6 and 7 September we discussed the legal position. The right hon. Gentleman asked me not to dwell on that, so I will not, except to say that we are satisfied that the combination of article 51 and the repeated appeals for help which we have had from the Government of Kuwait would provide an adequate legal basis. If it were decided that the


military option was inevitable, how that would be implemented and what the timings and procedures would be is obviously not decided. But, as I said, I believe, in September, and as the Leader of the Opposition confirmed then, it would be important to do it in a way that maximised the support that the international community and the coalition that I have mentioned are giving to the enterprise against aggression. Meanwhile, we want to increase the peaceful pressures to ratchet up the strength of the Security Council resolutions. We are considering a new one, as I said.
The point about the individual responsibility of Iraqi officials and officers for acts that they may be ordered to carry out is important, and should not be lost sight of, as the matter is considered.
It was right to go to Israel. One of the things that I discovered there was the strong feeling in Israel that too many people neglected to visit the country as they swung around the middle east. I had an awkward and difficult time last Wednesday, for reasons that have been amply but not always accurately described. I was able to achieve a serviceable relationship with Israeli Ministers of a kind which I have not had before, but I was unable to balance that, as I hoped, with listening to the views of authoritative and respected Palestinian leaders. I met Mr. Peres who, as always, spoke as a wise Leader of the Opposition. I realised again that there is a healthy debate in Israel on matters that perplex us and make us anxious here, including the nature of the regime in the occupied territories.
We believe in the right to Palestinian self-determination, as I have stated for some time. We have never advocated a specific outcome and we have never specifically advocated a Palestinian state, as opposed to other outcomes that are conceivable and have been canvassed, such as a confederal link with Jordan. It is not for us to specify that. We say that that right exists and will have to be respected as part of a comprehensive and negotiated settlement, which must also include provision for the security of Israel.
I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman's last point. After the killings in Jerusalem and the renewed cycle of violence, it is unfortunately inevitable that the Security Council will need and will be determined to devote time to this matter in the remaining days of our presidency of the Security Council and thereafter. It will be necessary for the Security Council to deal with both those issues in tandem for the time being. We must riot allow the international community to forget that anyone who is seriously interested in peace and tranquillity in the middle east must place the expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait at the top of the agenda.

Several hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House knows that we have two other statements this afternoon and an important debate on European legislation. I propose to allow questions on this statement to continue until 4.20 pm. I shall not call today those right hon. and hon. Members who spoke in the emergency debate, but shall give precedence to the 56 hon. Members who were unable to be called on that occasion. It would help me if hon. Members who were called to speak in the emergency debate did not rise now.

Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend take his mind to the situation that might exist if the United Nations resolutions were acted upon? A leader who would have feelings against the west and against America and who would probably be willing to use atomic weapons as a bargaining counter in the years ahead would be unsatisfactory for peace in the middle east. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only way of bringing Iraq back into the international concomitance of nations would be a major change of regime within Iraq——

Mr. Speaker: Briefly, please.

Sir Peter Emery: —and that the people of Iraq should consider that most carefully?

Mr. Hurd: They may well consider that, but it is riot a matter on which we can be decisive. My hon. Friend is entirely right to say that even if Saddam Hussein or Iraq were to comply fully with the Security Council resolutions, we would not have solved all the problems, and that when considering matters such as the retention of sanctions and the retention of forces, we would have to take into account the dangers that my hon. Friend has described.

Mr. James Molyneaux: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that some misguided people are coming close to awarding medals to Saddam Hussein for releasing some of the hostages, whom he should never have seized in the first place? Is not it intolerable that people should suggest negotiations about territory that was seized illegally?

Mr. Hurd: I agree with both the right hon. Gentleman's points, which he put clearly.

Mr. Michael Jopling: As a result of Iraq giving away overnight to Iran all the things over which they fought wars for years and lost hundreds of thousands of lives, is my right hon. Friend certain in his mind that the border between Iran and Iraq will not become an area of sanctions busting?

Mr. Hurd: I discussed this with the Iranian Foreign Minister in New York who said, realistically, that there will always be a certain amount of traffic over those mountains. It is clearly not in Iran's interests that Saddam Hussein should succeed in this adventure. It is in Iran's interests that the adventure should be checked and reversed, and I believe that Iran will act accordingly.

Mr. James Lamond: The Foreign Secretary has spoken throughout his statement of the necessity for Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait, but he has not gone as far as several others in his party, including the Prime Minister, who have said that it is also necessary to destroy Iraq's nuclear weapons bases, chemical weapons and biological weapons. Has that part of the determination been dropped? How would we carry that out if Iraq withdrew from Kuwait?

Mr. Hurd: Our commitment is to the three requirements of the Security Council, which the Prime Minister and I have often enumerated. I have already dealt, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), with the situation that would arise and the steps that would have to be taken if the three requirements were peacefully accepted by Saddam Hussein. Even if that happened there would remain a job ahead of us.

Mr. Peter Viggers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one weapon that may have been underdeployed so far in the area is the weapon of information? Has he observed the reports that some Iraqi soldiers appeared to think that hostages were there as volunteers? The lack of information appears to go right to the top. The leadership of Iraq may underestimate the determination of the allies to use force if necessary. Therefore, will he work with the BBC and other such news agencies, which have a unique integrity throughout the world, to see whether more can be done to promote truths in the area in the right languages?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is entirely right. We are doing precisely that. We are also working with friendly Arab Governments. When I went to Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and when I discussed these matters again with the Kuwaiti Foreign Minister, I stressed exactly my hon. Friend's points. It is particularly important that Kuwaitis should bear witness to what is happening in Kuwait. I do not know about the House, but British people do not seem to have absorbed the nature of the horrors taking place in Kuwait. It would come best from eye witnesses and from Kuwaitis, with whom we are in touch. The Kuwaitis are conscious of the need to put the information across to us and to their Arab brethren.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: Is the Secretary of State fully aware that there are now almost 500,000 Iraqi and allied service men in the region and that there is a high risk of accident and possible action? Is he satisfied that the rules of engagement are strictly understood, bearing it in mind that engagement might be the final option, and the subject of a determined decision by the forces' commanders? To what extent does he see signals that give more hope that sanctions are beginning to work?

Mr. Hurd: The rules of engagement are always important, for the reason that the hon. Gentleman stated. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and his colleagues in other countries are working the matter out satisfactorily.
Sanctions are creating shortages. The hon. Gentleman will have seen the announcement about petrol rationing. Shortages are building up. I cannot say that those shortages will be decisive in the short term. However, the sanctions have been effective in the sense that the oil trade has stopped. I gave the figures for the Royal Navy. Other trade is down. Sanctions are effective and shortages will build up. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman at what stage they are likely to be decisive.

Sir Giles Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the extremely vulnerable yet crucial position of Jordan in the particular problems of the Gulf? Is he satisfied that there is sufficient support for the Hashemite monarchy to remain a staunch ally of the west as it has been for many years? Would he care to comment on the risk should the mob in the streets take over and Saddam be invited in?

Mr. Hurd: That has caused us a great deal of anxiety for the reasons that my hon. Friend gave. The Jordanian Government are making strenuous efforts to enforce sanctions. I believe that they accept and impress upon the Iraqis the need for Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait. There is a great deal of misunderstanding and, indeed, bitterness between Jordan and the Arab states in the coalition

against the aggression. However, I believe that the two facts that I stated were accurate. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is hard to imagine anyone ruling Jordan better and more effectively than King Hussein does.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The Foreign Secretary has provided us with a welcome opportunity to reaffirm the determination of the British people that the withdrawal from Kuwait by Iraq must be complete and unconditional. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the unanimity of view expressed by the international community in the resolutions of the Security Council is the most hopeful development for peace as it can betoken further healthy developments in the middle east?
Although the right hon. Gentleman is entirely right to emphasise the primacy of the withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait, the Palestinian question is also a proper subject for the attention of that international consensual approach.
Can the right hon. Gentleman also report to the House on the visit of the Russian spokesman, Mr. Primakov, to Baghdad? Has he had any helpful information on the progress of those discussions?

Mr. Hurd: I agree that the coming together of the Security Council, particularly of the permanent members, offers a more general hope for the future. We want to keep that unity going on one subject after another, provided that that is realistic.
Mr. Primakov has spoken to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about his visit to Baghdad and also spoke to me about it on Saturday. The Soviet Union respects sanctions and its Government have spoken clearly and strenuously to the Iraqi Government about the need for withdrawal. There is no ambiguity about Mr. Primakov's stand on either matter.

Mr. James Hill: Is my right hon. Friend aware that outside this House the public fear that the western nations are losing the propaganda war? Saddam Hussein has freed 33 very sick and old hostages, or what I would call prisoners, but as he holds about 10,000 people, that is scarcely an achievement about which we can be proud.
My right hon. Friend has spoken of the terrible tragedies that have occurred in Kuwait and one must ask what type of Kuwait we shall liberate. Will it be back to the desert? Will the Iraqis have scattered everyone and taken advantage of the weakness in the west to face up to responsibilities?

Mr. Speaker: Briefly, please.

Mr. Hill: We must know from my right hon. Friend how long he believes that it will take the sanctions to bite so that Saddam Hussein capitulates.

Mr. Hurd: I agree with my hon. Friend's first point and that is why I commented as I did earlier on the release of the hostages and the promised release of French hostages, about which we heard this morning.
My hon. Friend will be aware that our Government, together with the President of the United States and all his allies, must keep under review the working of sanctions. We must make a judgment about whether those and the other peaceful pressures will be effective or whether we


must have recourse to the alternative. It is neither possible nor sensible to start setting deadlines for that—one must exercise continual judgment.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Why is there such a transparent contrast between the immediate condemnation of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, which has resulted in 25 countries sending their armies to that region so that the force now totals a quarter of a million men and women, and the passive acceptance of the occupation of Jerusalem, the west bank and the Gaza strip for 23 years? In the past three years alone more than 1,000 Palestinians have been killed and tens of thousands have been injured. How is it that, after all that, the Secretary-General of the United Nations has sent only three assistants from his office to inquire into such matters? Could it just be that the difference is that the Palestinians have no oil?

Mr. Hurd: The difference is that the two matters are different. Kuwait is occupied by Iraq as a result of an Iraqi act of aggression against Kuwait. The occupied territories are occupied by Israel as a result of an attack upon Israel. The occupation is wrong and does not provide a basis for Israel's legitimate request for security. However, the historical background is different and the Security Council resolutions are different.
In the case of the Arab-Israel question, when the suitable time comes we must reconcile the two things that arise out of geography and history, but for now we must get Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. In the future, however, we must reconcile the rights of the Palestinians, which the hon. Gentleman rightly champions, with the natural anxieties of Israel for security that arise from her geography and history.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: While not seeking to make the same mistake as the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East, (Mr. Nellist), may I say to my right hon. Friend that many of us would like the Israeli Government to realise how many friends they have lost during the past few years? Will he take every possible opportunity to impress on the ambassador here and the Government there that they can help to isolate this madman Hussein by acting honourably with regard to the Palestinians?

Mr. Hurd: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is a matter of wisdom, which would involve some flexibility in the attitude of the Israeli Government, for example to the Secretary-General's decision to send a mission. I hope that that wisdom and flexibility will appear.

Mr. Bernie Grant: What is happening with regard to the United Nations' inquiry? We know that it is not going into Israel because that Government will not co-operate, but will the Foreign Secretary say whether there will be an inquiry? I ask that question because I am aware that a party of 16 black social workers, lawyers and others witnessed the shootings at Temple Mount. They have film and recordings of it and would like to submit them to the United Nations' inquiry.

Mr. Hurd: They should do so, because whether or not the Secretary-General's mission gains entry to Israel, he will certainly wish to present a report to the Security Council. Discussions and ideas about how representatives of the Secretary-General might visit Israel are still going

the rounds, so the idea is not a lost cause, which is why I made my appeal. The hon. Gentleman should advise his friends to submit their evidence to the Secretary-General.

Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: Will my right hon. Friend tell us something about the measures that have been taken in relation to the financial aspect of sanctions? At the beginning of the debate on this subject reference was made to the importance that we all attach to ensuring that Iraq does not gain financially, and that credit and other financial measures are withdrawn from Iraq. What international co-ordination has there been to ensure that Iraq is totally cut off financially?

Mr. Hurd: I believe that the stringent financial measures are effective and right across the world, particulary in the financial centres, Iraqi accounts are frozen. She does not have access to foreign reserves or other resources, although she took a certain amount from Kuwait which is keeping her going for the time being. If my hon. Friend or any other hon. Member has evidence of attempts by financiers of any kind to get through the regulations I hope that they will let us or the United Nations sanctions committee know.

Mr. Michael Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to place on record the praise of the House for the humanitarian and generous way in which the kingdom of Saudi Arabia has responded to the plight of Kuwaitis forced to flee from their country by providing free accommodation, food and clothing for them? Those of us who met the Association for Free Kuwait yesterday were told by its members that it was impossible to find adequate words to thank the Saudis for their help. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that when Kuwait is finally restored to the Kuwaiti people it will, through punitive reparations on Saddam Hussein, be in the same physical state as it was before the invasion?

Mr. Hurd: That second point is the main reason why we are pressing ahead at the United Nations with the specific draft resolution on compensation. I agree with my hon. Friend's first point and saw evidence of it when I visited the Kuwaitis in Taif last month. The Saudis are practising the genuine version of Arab hospitality as compared with the ghastly distortion of it practised by Saddam Hussein.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that some—albeit a minority of us—in the Labour party are, quite simply, dismayed at his statement? Supposing military victory were attained, what would happen in the long term, after thousands of casualties and the oil fields burning from Basra to Kirkuk? What long-term assessment has been made of the number of casualties and of the effect in the rest of the Arab world, not least in Egypt, if blood were spilled? Some of us are profoundly unhappy, and frankly think that there should be diplomacy and talking and that peace plans should not be dismissed as necessarily bogus.

Mr. Hurd: Diplomacy and talking have been going on for some time, and I suppose that I am in charge of that on behalf of Britain. It is crucial to build up the peaceful pressures, a lot of which is diplomacy and talking, to get Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, and there is still a possibility that that will happen, provided that among those peaceful pressures is the knowledge that if he does not go in peace, he will be forced out. The hon. Gentleman


would take away that certainty. He is blurring it, and if he were to blur it from a position of authority, such as that of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), he would be diminishing the peaceful pressures on Saddam Hussein, which he does not want to do. I put this point seriously to a serious intervention. It is important that there should be a growing certainty in Saddam Hussein's mind that, one way or the other, it is either retreat or defeat; either he goes in peace or he is forced out.
Of course, the military option would bring destruction, dislocation and suffering, but the hon. Gentleman is not facing the alternative, which is to allow a simple, clear act of aggression to prevail and the aggressor to benefit from it. Behind all his talk, that is what he is prepared to contemplate. That is not safe. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Egypt, but if he talked to President Mubarak about that exact point, as I did last week, he would find that the President of Egypt's view is my view, not his.

Mr. Harry Barnes: How close are we to war in the middle east? What will be the military and political consequences, and what estimates have been made of the potential loss of human life, if such a war takes place? If it was unseemly for Saddam Hussein to haggle about hostages, will the Minister at least grant that it was as not unseemly for the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) to haggle, because he achieved something?

Mr. Hurd: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was present when I made my statement, but I did cover that point. It is not possible for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence or for me to give specific estimates of what the course or consequence of the military option might be. I have stated the general considerations and why it is clear in my mind, and that of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), that the military option cannot be discounted. It exists—it must exist in reality—and that fact is a crucial part of the peaceful pressures to reverse the aggression.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. Friend accept that all the forces in Saudi Arabia are on a high level of alert because there is no assurance that Iraq will not invade? If my right hon. Friend were to respond to the call from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) by telling Saddam Hussein that we would not use military aggression against him until we had gone back to the United Nations, would not that allow the Iraqi forces to relax until such a resolution was passed by the United Nations?

Mr. Hurd: I have been careful to give no such assurance, as my hon. Friend knows. He is right to say that all the forces in the Gulf have to be in a high state of readiness. The immediate danger which existed in early August of a further attack on Saudi Arabia is now, obviously, less likely, but one cannot rule out any action by this man.

Mr. Ian McCartney: When the right hon. Gentleman next meets members of the Kuwaiti royal family, will he obtain from them a commitment that the children who were illegally adopted by Kuwaiti citizens before Iraq's occupation of Kuwait will be returned?

Although they are small in number, and appear to have been forgotten about, the mothers of those children are distraught because they see no hope, even after the Kuwaiti Government has been re-established, of their children being returned to Britain. Will the Secretary of State secure a commitment from the Kuwaiti royal family that one of their first actions, in return for freedom being restored to their country, will be to return British children who were illegally adopted by Kuwaiti citizens before the invasion?

Mr. Hurd: I am not familiar with the situation to which the hon. Gentleman refers. If he has not already written to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, I shall be grateful if he will do so.

Mr. Nigel Forman: Since full and effective enforcement of the economic embargo is important in achieving a satisfactory outcome to the crisis in the foreseeable future, and as front-line states such as Jordan, Egypt and Turkey are vital to that purpose, can my right hon. Friend bring the House up to date on the further steps taken, notably by Japan and Germany, to increase financial contributions to the front-line states, to which such support is vital if they are to play an effective part in applying economic embargoes?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is quite right. On 1 October, the European Community decided to make provision from the 1990–91 budget for 1·5 billion ecu of support for Egypt, Turkey and Jordan—always provided that Jordan continues to make strenuous efforts to apply sanctions. I expect that additionally Germany will make an individual contribution. It has already announced that it will. When I visited Japan, I urged that country's Prime Minister and Foreign Minister to do more, and a few days later they announced a doubling of Japan's contribution. Germany and Japan are barred by law from sending ships, aircraft or men,, but are now making substantial financial contributions.

Ms. Mildred Gordon: Many of my Bangladeshi constituents have relatives who fled Kuwait, and who are now destitute in transit camps on the Jordanian and Turkish border. Has the Secretary of State visited those camps, and are there any plans to aid the people who remain in them? My Bangladeshi constituents feel that all the attention has centred on European refugees and that their relatives are being ignored.

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Lady's constituents may have that impression, but it is not an accurate one. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development, at my invitation, visited the frontier and the camps a few weeks ago. Britain was among the first to give help—particularly to the International Office of Migration, which has been co-ordinating flights out of Jordan of the refugees to which the hon. Lady referred. A substantially smaller number of refugees remain, and the movement of people homeward to countries such as Bangladesh has been speedy. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that the burden of Saddam Hussein's aggression on Bangladesh and other poor countries is very great.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his skilful and robust handling of the crisis, which has greatly enhanced our country's standing in that important part of the world.


Although I appreciate that my right hon. Friend cannot set a timetable for how long it will be before economic sanctions are deemed ineffective and the military option will have to be exercised, he will be aware of the high state of readiness of British forces in the Gulf—whom I and a number of my hon. Friends have visited. Does he agree that the situation cannot be allowed to drag on, and that, although Saddam Hussein must be given the shortest possible time to do the right thing, we must then exercise the military option?

Mr. Hurd: I agree that the situation cannot be allowed to drag on indefinitely, which is why the President of the United States and the British Government, among others, will have to take stock of the effectiveness of the peaceful pressures to which I referred and then take a decision, which will not be easy. Nevertheless, it is not a decision that can be shirked.

Mr. Paul Flynn: How does the Secretary of State react to the evidence that Saddam Hussein has developed terrifying weapons against which our allies have no defence? I refer to the fuel air explosive weapon, whose effect has been described as being as devastating as that of a small-scale nuclear weapon, and to biological weapons whose effects cannot be confined to the battlefield and will continue for decades. Will he investigate as a matter of urgency whether the assistance given by China in supplying lithium hydride to Iraq, by the firm of lndustrias Cadoen in Chile, which has been helping Iraq with the FAE weapon, by our country, by Holland and by Germany has finally come to an end, and assure us that, when the crisis is over, he will make it a main plank of his new campaign to build a new world order to try to banish these terrifying weapons from the face of the earth?

Mr. Hurd: We take this very seriously and we follow up all reports such as the one that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. He will know of the precautions that have been taken in this respect. He will also have heard the answer that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), who tackled me on this in a more general way in the first supplementary question on this statement.
Supposing that Saddam Hussein complied with the three existing Security Council resolutions, withdrew from Kuwait, let the hostages go and restored the Kuwaiti Government, we should still have a problem on our hands.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry that it has not been possible to call all hon. Members who have been rising, but I think that every one of them was called during Question Time——

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Not my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan).

Mr. Speaker: He was called on Question 16 and also in the emergency debate. We shall undoubtedly return to this subject.

Social Security Benefits (Uprating)

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the uprating of social security benefits. This will take place for most benefits in the first full week of the tax year—that is to say, the week beginning 8 April. The necessary statutory instruments applying both to Great Britain and Northern Ireland will in due course be laid before the House for debate.
As is customary, I will deal first with the main national insurance benefits, including most notably the retirement pension which now goes to some 10 million people. The basis for the uprating is the latest available figure for the increase in the retail prices index: the 10·9 per cent. rise recorded for the year to September 1990.
The retirement pension will accordingly rise by £5·10 per week for a single person, from £46·90 to £52, and by £8·15 per week for a couple from £75·10 to £83·25. This increase alone will cost about £2·3 billion, underlining once again our clear and continuing commitment to maintaining the pension's value.
Unemployment benefit will rise from £37·35 to £41·40 for a single person and from £60·40 to £66·95 for a couple; and sickness benefit from £35·70 to £39·60 for a single person and from £57·80 to £64·10 for a couple.
National insurance invalidity benefit will go up in line with the retirement pension. There will also be a 10·9 per cent. increase in all other non-income-related benefits for disabled people or those who are sick for a long period—severe disablement allowance, industrial injuries benefits, war disablement pensions, invalid care allowance, mobility allowance and attendance allowance. The 615,000 people now receiving mobility allowance will see it rise by nearly £3 per week, to £29·10. For the 750,000 people now receiving attendance allowance, there will be an increase of £2·75, to £27·80 in the lower rate, and of over £4, to £41·65 in the higher rate.
The age-related additions known as invalidity allowances, currently confined to those receiving invalidity benefit but being extended in December to give up to £10 per week extra to some 100,000 people receiving the non-contributory severe disablement allowance, will rise further in April to a maximum of £11·10.
Similarly, 10·9 per cent. increases will take place in widows pensions including widowed mothers allowance, war pensions, and all public service pensions, together with the special Ministry of Defence payment to the pre-1973 war widows, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will raise from £40 to £44·36 per week.
For the income-related benefits—income support, housing benefit, community charge benefit and family credit—the uprating will be based, again as usual, on the RPI less housing costs. This is because, for those receiving these benefits, help with rent is available through housing benefit or help with mortgage interest through income support itself.
This index rose by 8·1 per cent. in the year to September 1990, and the relevant benefit rates, with one exception to which I will come later, will go up accordingly. Thus, income support for a single person under 25 will go from £28·80 to £31·15, the rate for an older single person from £36·70 to £39·65, and the higher pensioner premium from


£17·05 to £18·45. For a family on income support with two children aged 10 and 12, benefit will rise by £7·75 per week to £103·30, plus full mortgage interest if they have been on benefit for more than 16 weeks, or full rent if they are tenants, and 80 per cent. of their community charge.
As the House is aware, statutory sick pay and statutory maternity pay are both paid through employers. The link between the two schemes is frankly somewhat artificial, resting more on considerations of administrative convenience than on consistency in either structure or purpose. I have concluded that the sensible development of policy in both fields would now be better served by treating them separately.
First, I propose to build on the restructuring of SSP undertaken last year, taking account of the considerations that I outlined to the House at that time. Occupational sick pay schemes have grown to such an extent that more than 90 per cent. of the work force now work for employers providing this cover, reflecting what is in my view a proper acceptance by employers of a much greater responsibility to cover short-term sickness among their employees. This in turn means that, for the great majority of those in work, the rates of SSP bear little or no relation to the amount that they actually receive when sick. In those circumstances, it is better for additional resources from the taxpayer to be concentrated more clearly on those least likely to have occupational provision, or in other areas of social security for which employers cannot be expected to provide.
Therefore, I propose to uprate fully, from £39·25 to £43·50, the lower of the two SSP rates, which goes to the lower-paid employees who are generally less likely to be covered by occupational schemes to extend the coverage of this rate across the whole range of earnings bands within which employers pay lower rates of contributions, which currently covers employees earning less than £175 a week, and to leave the higher rate of SSP unchanged at £52·50. These changes will reduce expenditure by about £100 million in 1991–92, while fully protecting the lower-paid and with little or no effect for the great majority of others.
I intend also to adjust the arrangements under which employers are fully reimbursed, by deduction from their remittances of national insurance contributions, for the whole of their expenditure on SSP plus an amount to cover payments of such contributions on SSP itself. I propose instead to move to 80 per cent. reimbursement. This will reduce public expenditure in this area by about £180 million in 1991–92, in addition to the £100 million to which I have just referred. At the same time, however, I propose to make some offsetting reductions in the rates of employers' national insurance contributions. Full details will be given in the normal statement about contributions which is made at the time of the Chancellor's autumn statement, but I can say now that my intention is to reduce each of the lower rates—those which currently apply in respect of employees earning up to £175—by at least one quarter of a per cent. and to reduce the standard rate by 0·05 per cent. These changes will reduce employers' contributions by over £200 million, and take account also of the compensation employers currently receive for contributions paid on SSP itself. They will go a considerable way in helping employers, particularly

smaller employers who tend to have lower-paid employees, to meet any extra costs which might otherwise arise from the new arrangements. Legislation will be required.
The arrangements for statutory maternity pay, where occupational cover is very much less extensive, will be left entirely unchanged except for any minor modifications needed in consequence of the separation from SSP. That separation, however, enables me to go further on the standard rate of statutory maternity pay than I have proposed for SSP. I intend not only to increase it by the RPI, which would take it from £39·25 to £43·50, but by a further £1 a week to £44·50. An additional £1 will also be added to the national insurance maternity allowance, taking it from £35·70 to £40·60 instead of the £3960 which an RPI uprating alone would have indicated. There will thus be a real increase in benefit for some 315,000 mothers-to-be in the course of a year, at a cost of about £5 million
.
Apart from this increase in maternity pay, my proposals on SSP, which I believe strike a sensible new balance in the partnership between the state and employers which has developed in this field, open the way to a number of other important improvements, both small and large.
In turning to those improvements, I should make one point clearly to the House—that support for families does not relate only to families with children, important though that is. It must acknowledge responsibilities towards the old as well as the young, and not least the particular pressures that families can face arising from disability, or the need for special care. In framing my proposals I have sought to take account of all those strands.
I come first to the needs of disabled people and their carers. We are already carrying through the major programme described in my uprating statement last year. Last April we made real increases in the disability premiums in income support, housing benefit and community charge benefit, including in particular those for children, extended mobility allowance to the deaf-blind, and extended attendance allowance to disabled babies under two. This month we have introduced a carers' premium in the income-related benefits, and extended attendance allowance to meet the special needs of the terminally ill. In December we shall make the increases in severe disablement allowance to which I have already referred, and we are preparing new benefits for introduction in 1992 to help those disabled people who wish to work and further to extend help with disability costs.
Against that background, I cannot of course propose today further measures on the same scale, but what I can and will do is to make five more specific improvements particularly directed at the needs of some of the most severely disabled people and their carers.
The independent living fund, now providing extra help—averaging £74 per week but in some cases several hundred pounds a week—to some 6,000 severely disabled people in the community, will have its resources nearly doubled to £62 million next year. It will thus have risen twelvefold, from an initial £5 million, in only three years.
We shall make an additional grant to Motability of £1 million per year to enhance the assistance that it can give with the expensive adaptation of cars which severely disabled people often need.
I intend, too, to modify the mobility allowance regulations to help those particularly unfortunate people


who suffer the amputation of both legs. The House will be aware of two recent cases—Mrs. Sandra Stones in Durham and Sergeant Andy Mudd in Colchester—where either mobility allowance was withdrawn or doubt was cast on continuing entitlement. While cases in doubt may be resolved by review or appeal, as I am glad to say has already happened in the case of Sergeant Mudd, we ought to do everything possible to avoid this sort of uncertainty and the distress that it can cause. I therefore propose an amendment to put the payment of mobility allowance in such cases beyond doubt.
I propose also two further useful improvements for carers. The amount which can be earned without affecting entitlement to invalid care allowance, increased last year from £12 to £20 per week, will in April go up by a further 50 per cent. to £30 per week. I intend to provide that the carers' premium, just introduced in income support, which as things stand would cease immediately on the death of the person being cared for, can continue to be paid for up to eight weeks thereafter.
With regard to pensioners, as I have said on a number of occasions in the House and elsewhere, in welcoming the rise in pensioners' real average net incomes which has taken place as a result of the spread of occupational and personal pensions and the growth of savings, we must not overlook those who have not yet gained from those trends. I therefore propose to make this year a real increase in the basic pensioner premium for those aged 60 to 74 in income support, housing benefit and community charge benefit, which will go up by £1 per week more for a single pensioner, and £1·50 more for a couple, than in a straightforward uprating. It will thus rise by £1·95 from £11·80 to £13·75 for a single pensioner and by £2·95 from £17·95 to £20·90 for a couple, contributing to total increases of £4·90 and £7·60 respectively in their income support.
This will cost nearly £80 million. It will assist some 400,000 pensioners directly through income support, and well over 1·5 million through housing benefit and community charge benefit. Taken together with the premium increases for the older and more disabled pensioners which took place in October 1989, it means that over 18 months there will have been a real increase in every one of the premiums applying to around 6 million less well-off pensioners, at a total cost of about £300 million.
I am making a major upward adjustment in income support in a field which brings together the interests of both elderly and disabled people and the families to which they belong—the limits relating to residential care and nursing homes.
The survey of costs we commissioned from Price Waterhouse to give us additional information in this field is being placed in the Library today. In brief, it shows that, while the limits for residential care are reasonably close to median costs across the country, those for nursing homes are significantly too low; but it does not provide evidence of a sufficiently clear pattern of geographical variation, except for Greater London, to justify the introduction of further such variations at this stage.
What I now propose takes account both of the Price Waterhouse results and of the many other representations to us by voluntary and charitable bodies and organisations of home owners, as well as by many hon. Members on behalf of their constituents.
For residential care, the basic limit will rise by £5 per week to £160. There will be larger increases of £15 to £185

per week for the category covering the very dependent and blind elderly, which includes, for example, Alzheimer's disease cases; and for those covering mentally handicapped, mentally ill and physically disabled people.
For nursing homes, the increases will be much larger—£45 per week, bringing the total to £255 per week, for the main category catering for the elderly, and also for the mentally ill; an increase of £35, bringing the total to £260 per week, for the mentally handicapped; and an increase of £35, bringing the total to £290 a week, for the physically disabled. On this occasion, the increase for terminal illness homes will be somewhat smaller, an increase of £15, bringing the total to £275 a week, taking account of the fact that this type of home received the largest increases last year, that the distinction between these homes and others is becoming increasingly artificial, and that voluntary hospices—many of which do not seek to make use of income support anyway—are now receiving extra financial help specially geared to their needs under the arrangements introduced this year by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
Additionally, I propose to introduce a special further nursing home supplement in Greater London to take it from £23 to £33 per week. Thus for an ordinary nursing home in Greater London the overall increase will be £55 per week.
The total cost of the increases will be some £225 million. Together with those made in April and August this year, income support expenditure on those in homes will have risen by more than £400 million per year in quite a short period—over and above the more than £1 billion that it had already reached by the end of March this year.
As the House knows, pending the changes now planned for 1993, the income support limits in this field are, and always have been, designed to help towards not only income maintenance but also housing and care costs. It has never been the intention, nor is it sensible, that in the generality of cases housing benefit itself should be available as an alternative to income support. An anomaly exists in the regulations, which has enabled such claims to be made, and in the light of the large increases in limits which I have announced, I intend to consult on amendments to re-establish the policy intention more clearly.
Last, but not least, I intend to make an increase in child benefit, which is and will remain a strong element in our policies for family support. It will not, however, surprise the House, in view of what I said earlier about considering the needs of families more broadly and the major improvements that I have just announced, that I am not able simply to uprate it across the board, which would have a gross cost of some £500 million and a net cost of some £380 million.
In fulfilling my statutory duty of review, I have therefore looked not only at whether there should be an increase but at the form it should take to make the most effective use of the resources that I am able to make available. I have concluded that the right course this year is to make an increase which gives a worthwhile amount to all mothers, and which will be particularly welcome to new mothers because it recognises that for the great majority of parents the arrival of the first child has much the largest impact on their finances, not only because of the initial costs that they incur but because, in a world where the great majority of women work while they are childless but where most feel it necessary or right to give up work, or to


work less, for some considerable time thereafter, it is frequently associated with a sharp reduction in the family income.
I therefore propose this year an increase which acknowledges that fact by making an additional payment for the first or eldest eligible child of £1 per week, normally payable to the mother, of course, and in addition to the continued payment of £7·25 per week for each child. As it will go to every family, and will be larger than a retail prices index increase in one-parent benefit—itself, indeed, defined as a payment for the first or eldest child—would have been, I do not propose on this occasion to increase that benefit as well.
The measure will complement what we have already done in recent years to steer some £350 million of real extra help to low-income families through income support and family credit. It will give an extra £1 per week in child benefit to every mother in nearly 7 million families, at a gross cost of more than £350 million and a net cost of £260 million.
By choosing what I believe to be sensible priorities, I have been able to make a number of important improvements in social security, especially for families, without adding overall to what is in any case the very large cost this year of maintaining our uprating commitments.
What I have announced helps families with children and families-to-be. It helps large numbers of less-well-off pensioners. It will ease the anxieties of families concerned with the care of elderly or disabled relatives, and of those relatives themselves, and it builds on what we are already doing to give greater help to disabled people. In short, it carries forward the reshaping of our social security system, which was conceived in the 1940s, to meet the needs of the 1990s.

Mr. Michael Meacher: I welcome the small but useful increases in statutory maternity pay, in independent living fund resources and in the basic pensioner premium. Those are long overdue and will certainly bring some relief to a number of hard-pressed groups. Welcome as they are, however, they will not appease the deep anger felt by people with disabilities that these various minor improvements are being funded by much deeper cuts in the budget for disabled people over the period ahead.
We unreservedly welcome the significant increase in nursing home income support, which is necessary to prevent the increasing level of closures and evictions already occurring. Those are important additions, but they must be balanced—and, indeed, have been largely paid for—by the cuts in statutory sick pay, which amount to £280 million a year.
For child benefit, I cannot give the same welcome. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to recall that in the Tory party manifesto for the 1987 election he and his colleagues gave an unequivocal pledge that
Child benefit will continue to be paid as now, and direct to the mother.
Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that, having broken that explicit promise for the fourth year running, the Government have forfeited any claim not only to be the party of the family but even to basic honesty? Will he confirm that, had child benefit been raised each year as the Government promised, he would today be announcing a

rate of more than £9·50 per week for each child—£2·30 per week higher than the rate at which it was frozen four years ago? Will he confirm that an average family with three children, even after taking account of the extra benefit for the first child that has just been announced, will this year be deprived of more than £300 which the Government promised and have since withheld? That sum is equal to almost 3p on income tax for a family on average earnings.
Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that paying an extra pound a week for the first child only, with nothing for the others, is a mere fig leaf to cover the Government's deeply unpopular policy of perpetual freeze and, moreover, has been prompted by by-election panic? What is the principle behind it? If, as the right hon. Gentleman said, it is to compensate the mother for the drop in earnings at the birth of the first child, what compensation is £1 per week for a loss of earnings of perhaps £100 per week or more?
Is it not clear that the Government's real motive for this bit of window dressing is that it is cheaper? By letting child benefit wither on the vine, is it not manifest that the Government still have no family policy worth the name? Uprating child benefit for all children, at least in line with inflation, is the litmus test of commitment to the family because the Government cannot be in favour of the family while cutting benefits for children. By that test, the Government have failed.
Is the right hon. Gentleman proud that for the 12th year running the Government are denying any rise in living standards to the 2 million poorest pensioners, who are wholly dependent on the basic retirement pension? Is he proud that, as a result, the basic pension, which represented almost a quarter of average earnings in 1979, is now, even after his announcement, worth only a sixth? Will he confirm that had the Government not broken Labour's uprating link with earnings he would be announcing today a single person's pension of not £52 per week but £65 per week and a married couple's pension of not £83 per week but £105 per week? Will he admit that, as a result of the breaking of the pensions link with earnings a decade ago, the Exchequer has cumulatively saved no less than £22,000 million at the expense of pensioners? Does it not reveal the Government's real priorities when they choose to remove more than £20 billion which should have gone to pensioners, and which under Labour would have gone to pensioners, and to use it instead to fund a cascade of tax relief for the rich?
In particular, will the right hon. Gentleman further consider the plight of two of the poorest groups in society, who will remain vulnerable following his statement? The first consists of the 100,000 frail and disabled——

Mr. Tim Janman: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Not in the middle of questions on a statement.

Mr. Meacher: The first consists of the 100,000 frail and disabled elderly people in private residential and nursing homes who depend on income support. As I said, we welcome the increase in income support that the right hon. Gentleman announced, but is he aware that the Independent Healthcare Association estimates that maximum state support levels currently fall short of by more than £100 per week fees actually charged for a nursing home and by nearly £40 per week for a typical residential home? Is it not, therefore, clear that the


announced increases of only £5 per week for residential homes and £15, £35 and £45 for nursing and other homes will still leave many thousands of frail elderly people desperately worried about problems of growing debt and possible eviction?
Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that 130,000 claimants in desperate need are entirely omitted from his statement? They are the losers from the Fowler social security changes in 1988 who are on transitional payments and who, next April, will enter their fourth year running without any increase in benefit at all. How can the Government justify giving discounts on electricity bills this year to investors in the privatisation while pensioners and low-income families are struggling to pay fuel bills and some get no rebates and no increases in their benefits either?
There was one other important omission from the right hon. Gentleman's statement. Will he now recognise that pensioners and others on income support who for the first time are being made to pay 20 per cent. of their poll tax are not being fully compensated as Ministers claimed that they would be? That is partly because of clawbacks, partly because the poll tax turned out to be higher than forecast, and partly because of large regional variations. As the Prime Minister has said that income support claimants are meant to be fully compensated, will the right hon. Gentleman now undertake to make good that shortfall, and will he also ensure that the poll tax compensation element is separately identified within income support and uprated each year in line with the average increase in poll tax? Several polls have detected a clear change of mood in the country, which is now rejecting the endless enrichment of the better off at the expense of the less well off and the poor. The inadequacies and the gaps in the statement made by the Secretary of State today illustrate clearly the extent to which the Government are failing to meet growing public concern about the indefensible extremes of wealth and poverty in our society today.

Mr. Newton: It was almost with a sense of relief that I noted, by the end of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, that he was back to his usual overheated form. I was quite taken aback by the muted nature of his earlier comments, which seemed to suggest that he thought that I had done some rather good things. I am grateful to him for recognising that at the outset.
The hon. Gentleman raised a wide variety of questions, and I will deal with as many as I can. First, he made the ludicrous suggestion that my proposals on child benefit somehow breached the pledge that he accurately quoted. No one has seriously contended that the number of occasions on which there has been no increase in child benefit has been inconsistent with the pledge.

Ms. Clare Short: We have said that.

Mr. Newton: The Opposition may have said it, but they have never managed to get anyone else to believe it. Given that fact, it is beyond belief that now that we propose to increase child benefit we are accused of breaking the pledge.
Another of the hon. Gentleman's suggestions should be knocked firmly on the head—the suggestion that what I have announced today, whether in respect of child benefit or in any other major respect, is in some way the result of a sudden change that has taken place in the past few days,

let alone since last Thursday. The proposals are precisely what I agreed with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury nearly a fortnight ago—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Newton: The third major suggestion that the hon. Gentleman sought to make was that the Government were not interested in the needs of families. I think that I had the support of a large number of hon. Members on both sides of the House when I said in my statement that family policy is not only a matter of helping families with children. Important though that is, we must also take into account the needs of elderly and disabled people and their families. As the whole of my statement showed, we have sought to make changes that help families across the whole spectrum of their need and in a sensible and balanced way.
It is rich for the hon. Gentleman to talk about pledges to pensioners. If I remember rightly, he was a social security Minister when the last Labour Government fiddled the way in which they uprated pensions, precisely to avoid fulfilling their commitment to uprate in line with earnings or prices, whichever were the higher. So I am not prepared to listen to lectures from the hon. Gentleman on that.
I await with interest the next occasion on which the hon. Gentleman quotes from an organisation of private home owners to justify the suggestion that what they would like by way of increases in the residential care and home limits—although of course I understand that that is what they would like—is to be preferred to the evidence that the hon. Gentleman can read for himself in the Price Waterhouse survey. The increases in the limits for nursing homes are the largest ever made. They will greatly reduce anxieties and the hon. Gentleman should welcome them as warmly as others will.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that the House is put in great difficulty by the fact that we have three statements on one day—especially on a day on which the main business has to end at 7 pm. As the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure is here, it may be worth suggesting that we might look into whether statements of such great importance should be printed and placed in the Vote Office so that hon. Members may study them before asking questions.
As we have another statement today, as well as a very important debate on the scrutiny of European legislation, and as the contents of the statements are debatable and could perhaps be discussed during our debate on the Queen's Speech, I propose to allow questions on the social security statement to go on for no more than 20 minutes—until 5.20 pm.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: What would the figure be if the current benefit levels this year were uprated by 10·9 per cent? Would they come to more or less than the package announced this afternoon? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, for an additional £120 million net, he could have uprated child benefit across the board? Is it not hypocritical for a Government who have had £100 billion-worth of proceeds from oil and gas and £40 billion-worth of privatisation


proceeds, and who profess an interest in promoting family policy, to refuse year after year to uprate child benefit fully?
Also, it is profoundly unsatisfactory to have crisis Downing street summits as a way of managing this country's benefit policy. Far too many people depend on it for that. What was the Prime Minister's impact on the policy change? What is the future for child benefit in the Secretary of State's hands?—[Interruption.]

Mr. Newton: I am afraid that I missed the hon. Gentleman's last phrase in the slight hubbub. I can only repeat that what I have announced on all the major points today is precisely what I agreed with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury nearly a fortnight ago.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman's other points, I can only say that of course I should have liked to do all sorts of other things, as any Secretary of State for Social Security would, but if I had adopted the policy that the hon. Gentleman has been urging on me in respect of child benefit it would have been much more difficult for me to do what I have done for residential care and nursing homes. In balancing the needs of families, I believe that I have struck about the right balance.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has helped the family through the whole age range. That is extremely important. He will not be surprised to learn that I welcome in particular the uprating of the family allowance, as I still think of it, for the first child. That will be of enormous assistance to mothers when they have to stop work and if they wish to stay at home and look after children. On behalf of them, including my daughter who is to have a child at any moment, I thank my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I reciprocate her good wishes by sending my good wishes to her daughter.

Mr. Frank Field: How much have families lost as a result of the Government not indexing child benefit fully during their stewardship? Does he agree that if it has been politically expedient at this distance from the election to pump an extra £230 million into the child benefit scheme—and I welcome that—it would be folly for a party to enter an election advocating the abolition of a scheme which is clearly popular among one third of the voters unless that party was drawing up a suicide note for the voters?

Mr. Newton: First, the calculation which the hon. Gentleman is inviting me to make, which his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) tried to get me to make earlier, is artificial in the extreme. As with some of the pension calculations, had those sums of money been put into social security instead of being deployed in other ways, contribution rates would have been higher and tax rates would have been higher including taxes paid by the selfsame families about whom the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) is concerned.
With regard to the other point raised by the hon. Member for Birkenhead, I can only refer him to the sentence in my statement which states:

child benefit … is and will remain a strong element in our policies for family support.

Sir Norman Fowler: Contrary to what the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) said, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on his statement today? May I particularly congratulate him on the extra support that he has provided for families? Will he clarify and perhaps emphasise one point? Will he give an assurance that there is no intention to change the general child benefit system to which we as a party and as a Government have been committed?

Mr. Newton: I have just underlined the relevant sentence in my statement in answer to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field):
Child benefit … is and will remain a strong element in our policies for family support.
Of course that does not exclude consideration of other ways of helping families. However, that should give my right hon. Friend—whose views in this area I obviously greatly respect, having worked rather closely with him for six years—the reassurance that he wants.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Is today's statement the last word before next April on the subject of improved community charge benefits, which are so important to so many people on low incomes, particularly disabled people? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many disabled people who used to benefit under the old rate rebate system for adaptations are suffering and are as much as £400 worse off as a result of the community charge system? Does he accept that RADAR has dozens of cases of people who are worse off in that respect? That issue must be seriously considered.

Mr. Newton: I am obviously aware of the point that is frequently made in that area. Equally, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the concession in respect of the rating system was specifically related to adaptations for disabled people's houses. It is difficult to accommodate that within the community charge system. I will draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, but I am not planning a further statement.

Sir David Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his uprating in respect of the disabled and particularly the extra money for the independent living fund will be welcomed by Conservative Members? Will he therefore consider modifying his White Paper proposals and make the ILF a permanent statutory feature of our total form of help for the disabled?

Mr. Newton: I do not think that I can undertake to do the latter, but we shall be looking with great care at the arrangements for 1993 when local authorities will take over new responsibilities for community care and care for disabled people and others.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: Why did the right hon. Gentleman decide to recoup part of the cost of the child benefit change by refusing to uprate the single-parent additional premium when those are usually the poorest parents? Will he explain the thinking which led to the selection of the figure of £ 1 for the eldest child when he said


that it was partly to compensate for the loss of the woman's earnings? Women's wages are low, but not that low.

Mr. Newton: I am not, of course, suggesting that the problem to which I referred in my statement can be met entirely through the social security system. However, it is sensible to recognise within that system the obvious contemporary reality of what happens to family incomes when the first child is born. As for the £1, that relates to the large sum of money which I felt able to make available in that area alongside the equally large sums of money that I wish to deploy in other areas which are also important to many families.

Sir Ian Gilmour: I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on his partial uprating of child benefit while deeply regretting that it has not been uprated in full. What my right hon. Friend has done is a great deal better than nothing. As the only countries in the world which give more for the first child are Malta and Iran, can my right hon. Friend explain what particularly persuaded the Government to follow their example?

Mr. Newton: I cannot speak for the rationale in other countries. However, it may well be that that goes back, as ours did with the old family allowance system, to a different world in which many women gave up work when they were married, not when they had children. The world has changed dramatically in recent years and over the last generation or so. I believe that it is sensible to recognise that in the social security system.

Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Secretary of State aware that, in the social security review to which he referred, many severely disabled people lost the additional supplementary benefit payments which were suitable for their special needs and they have now become heavily dependent on the independent living fund? Despite the doubling of that in the Secretary of State's announcement, that is still neither adequate nor permanent and that is causing deep distress among the most disabled people. Can we consider something more permanent?

Mr. Newton: I have obviously been aware for a long time of the right hon. Gentleman's concern in this matter and I very much respect him for that. However, the independent living fund has, to a very substantial extent, met not only the problems about which he was concerned at the point of transition to the new scheme, but has gone well beyond that to help people who would not have been helped under the old scheme. I have said that we intend to deploy additional resources in it and I believe that that will maintain its value as an important source of assistance for the people with whom the right hon. Gentleman is rightly concerned.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, by the arrangements that he has announced for increasing payments to those in nursing homes, he will have laid to rest a tremendous amount of anxiety, particularly in the south-east? He will not only have brought immediate relief to the anguish of relatives but he will have built some base on which homes can plan their financial futures, particularly in the interim between now and the implementation of the community charge.

Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I hope that she will think it right for me to acknowledge that, in referring to representations by hon. Members on behalf of their constituents in considering these matters, she was one of those whom I had very much in mind.

Rev. Martin Smyth: How many pensioners will lose, especially with the withdrawal of housing benefits and the new uprating? That spectre has existed for years. How many more will be caught in the trap as a result of this uprating? I was aware of the Secretary of State's answer concerning Price Waterhouse. Mencap has said that the residential care allowance should have gone up to about £225, failing which some homes might close and others might not open. Did Price Waterhouse say anything about the possible growth of the cardboard city?

Mr. Newton: The Price Waterhouse report, a copy of which I have placed in the Library, does not go into quite as much detail in respect of individual categories of home, for sample reasons, as the hon. Gentleman or indeed I might like. Perhaps it would be better if the hon. Gentleman looked at the report before pursuing me further on such points of detail.
I was not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman meant in his earlier point. I have said that an anomaly has appeared, which seems to be making it possible for some people to make claims to housing benefit when it is absolutely clear that the income support limit is meant to embrace housing costs. That is not very sensible, and we need to tidy it up.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on commandeering the largest budget for pensions and benefits that this country has ever seen? Does he agree that it would be wise to consider also who is paying for all of it and that the burden of taxation still falls most heavily on ordinary families, often with children? They are also the ones who would gain most from a modest cut in tax rates and the ones who would suffer most if tax rates were forced to be increased in the way in which they would have to be if Labour's promises were ever fulfilled.

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend has restored a healthy perspective to some of the things that we hear from the Opposition Benches. My only reservation about what she said is that I am not really sure whether I should like to be accused of commandeering resources. I prefer to think of myself as doing good work.

Mr. John Battle: Before the Secretary of State gets away with masquerading as the family friend, or, perhaps more particularly, as the friend of the first born, are he and the Cabinet aware that £1 does not buy even one packet of 10 disposable nappies for the baby? They cost £1·24. Is he aware that a pair of shoes for a five-year-old costs about £15 and that an anorak for an eight-year-old now costs £12 to £15? How on earth can the first-born get assistance from that kind of increase? Why will the Secretary of State not return to his original pledge, or would he rather retitle child benefit and from now on call it first-born benefit as that is what it is proving to be?

Mr. Newton: I have no intention of renaming it because I have made it absolutely clear that the payments continue for all children, except that I am making an increase in respect of the first. As to the rest of the hon. Gentleman's


remarks, no one—not even the hon. Gentleman in his most extravagant moments, and they are pretty extravagant—and not even the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), has suggested that he expects child benefit to be at a level that would fully meet the costs of all children in all families. That has never been the intention, let alone the reality. What my pound does is to make a useful additional contribution.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I thank my right hon. Friend for his excellent statement and for the way in which he has targeted additional resources to those groups most in need—for example, families and the disabled—the way in which he has doubled resources for the independent living fund, and substantially increased income support for those in residential homes and in nursing homes. I do not wish to take from my right hon. Friend the praise that will be heaped upon him, but will he give an assurance that he will seriously reconsider the uprating of child benefit in future years not just for the first child but for all children as it is the most effective of universal benefits?

Mr. Newton: Until the last few seconds I was going to say that I had better quit while I was ahead. On my hon. Friend's last remarks, the only assurance that I can properly give my hon. Friend is that, just as I have demonstrated that I have carried out in good faith my statutory duty to review this year, so I shall continue in future years.

Mrs. Sylvia Heal (Mid-Staffordshire): While welcoming some of the small increases that the Secretary of State has announced, I must express my regret and that of many people with disabilities that there has been no increase in the earnings disregard. It was first introduced in 1988, and the sum was then set at £15. In effect, that means that the small number of people who are working and who have had pay rises have received no increase in their income. When will the Government break the link between dependency and disability?

Mr. Newton: Possibly the hon. Lady has missed the fact that one of the really substantial new benefit improvements that we are working on at the moment with a view to introducing it in 1992 is what we originally called disability employment credit, which some other people have called partial incapacity benefit. It is designed to find a much more constructive solution to the problem by enabling people to work and enjoy continued benefit but to get off income support and into a different kind of benefit that will help them while they are working.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his statement will be very welcome to carers and dependants with special needs and also to those who wish to live independently and to the 10 million pensioners and the parents of 12 million children?
To see only 12 Labour Back Benchers shows how much the Opposition care.
Does my right hon. Friend also accept that his meeting commitments on inflation-proofing of many benefits and pensions and finding £350 million for parents and children is much to be welcomed?
To those who are worried about child benefit going to the well-off, may I point out that the value of two personal

allowances with the married man's allowance and mortgage relief allowance is equivalent to 12 child benefits? Perhaps the hard-hearted could look at those before getting at children.

Mr. Newton: I will not join in the aggression of my hon. Friend's remarks. I welcome his second remark. I shall have to study his third remark with some care.

Mr. Jim Sillars: Is the Secretary of State aware that he has not increased child benefit as he claimed, that the accurate description is that he has increased benefit for some children, and that by freezing the rest he has effectively cut it for other children? Is he aware that most mothers will not accept the ludicrous rationale in his statement about the first-born having a far greater financial impact than subsequent children in the family and that most mothers cannot distinguish between the needs of the first-born and subsequent children in the family? Does not his position appear more ludicrous because he is really saying that, in the case of a mother who has twins when childbearing for the first time, the child who was born a few minutes earlier than the other is worth a pound more?

Mr. Newton: The latter question is a good one, and I shall reflect on it. I am sure that we shall be able to find a solution. On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I do not think that anybody could read into my remarks, either in my statement or subsequently, the suggestion that there was a particular difference in costs per child. However, I said that the impact on families is greater with the first child because of the simple, observable fact that at that point the household income tends to fall.

Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. I welcome his commitment to two matters with which I am concerned. I welcome the commitment to child benefit continuing, although I should have liked it to be raised more. I also welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement regarding nursing homes and residential homes.
Will my right hon. Friend clarify one point regarding sufferers of Alzheimer's disease? He knows that I have a great interest in that matter. Quite often, nursing homes cannot cope with people suffering from Alzheimer's disease and families are asked to remove them to more specialised homes which provide terminal care but are not hospices. Will my right hon. Friend clarify whether such individuals and their families will be entitled to the higher rate of benefit to pay for that care?

Mr. Newton: It is rather difficult for me to do precisely what my hon. Friend has asked, although I shall not disguise the fact that she was another hon. Friend whom I had in mind when making the statement—hence the reference to Alzheimer's disease. Because the position depends on whether we are talking about a residential care home or a nursing home, and in which part of the country, and because I cannot specify particular limits for particular diseases, the provisions would depend on all the circumstances.

Mr. John McAllion: Does the Secretary of State accept that his announcement about child benefit will mean absolutely nothing to the millions of children in families who depend on income support because the extra pound that will be awarded to them in child benefit will


mean £1 lost in benefit entitlement? Will he accept that the time has now come to exclude child benefit completely from income support assessments so that its application will be genuinely universal and so that we do not have the nonsense that those who need the benefit most are those who are excluded from it?

Mr. Newton: The latter point does not really make sense in terms of any sensible operation of the system. The normal offset between child benefit and income support will operate this year as on other occasions when child benefit has been increased. It is important that the hon. Gentleman should understand that another effect of the operation of this system is that those on income support will effectively receive the amount that they would have received if child benefit had been fully uprated across the board.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. As the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) has intimated to me that because of the pressure on time today he does not intend to move his 10-minute Bill on licensing reform, for which I am sure the whole House will thank him, I propose, therefore, to allow questions on this matter to continue for a further 10 minutes, but then we must move on.

Mr. Timothy Raison: Although I believe that the general uprating of child benefit is still essential, I, too, think that my right hon. Friend has done well in what was clearly a different public expenditure round in achieving additional resources for child benefit. His statement that child benefit will remain a strong element in our policy will be widely welcomed. Does it mean that any alternative ideas of proceeding by way of child tax allowances have now been dropped and will the new extra benefit for the first child require primary legislation?

Mr. Newton: No, the extra benefit for the first child does not require primary legislation. Indeed, one of the advantages of that provision is that it will be possible for me to make the payments effective from April next year, at the normal uprating time. Obviously, child tax allowances are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, and nothing that I have said this afternoon rules out any consideration that he might want to give to complementary measures. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) for welcoming my statement.

Mr. Jim Cousins: Surely the Secretary of State will accept that far more people receive residential care support than nursing home support, yet his statement increases residential care support by only 3 per cent. Is the right hon. Gentleman willing to accept the extra personal stress, tension and the loss in quality of care that will inevitably accompany his statement, especially in those parts of cities where residential care homes have now become a substantial industry? What has the right hon. Gentleman to say to the home owners and to the residents of those homes? Does he propose to put any gate or restraint on accepting more people currently in hospital care into that type of residential care?

Mr. Newton: The last point is, of course, primarily a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health. The hon. Gentleman is well aware of

the plans, which have recently been deferred, for operating a different system from 1993. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's first point, I can only ask him to read the Price Waterhouse survey—I appreciate that he has not yet had the time to do so—which dealt with the numbers of people in the two types of home. Although the number of people in residential care homes is larger than the number in nursing homes, as the number in nursing homes is moving towards being half the total I do not entirely accept the hon. Gentleman's point. However, the main point is that the disparity in costs as against our income support limit is clearly much greater in nursing homes. It therefore seems sensible to put the extra resources principally there.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: My right hon. Friend has obviously spent considerable time putting together this detailed and welcome package, so will he totally scotch the Opposition's idea that it was rushed together last night?

Mr. Newton: Anybody who believes that the statement was put together hastily last night will believe anything. I have now said twice and, in view of my hon. Friend's question, will say a third time that the major elements in what I have just announced were agreed with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury nearly a fortnight ago.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: How many disabled people will still be below the poverty line in spite of today's minor improvements? Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed that, although a mother's income drops considerably if she gives up work as a result of the birth of her first child, it remains pretty low between her first and second children if she is out of work or even if she takes a low-paid part-time job, which is the lot of the vast majority of Britain's young mothers?

Mr. Newton: I am not sure what definition the hon. Lady was using in her point about disabled people. However, she can check that last year we significantly increased the disability premium, including the premium for disabled children, and made a wide range of other improvements in disability benefits. I forgot to comment earlier on the comments made by the hon. Member for Oldham, West on this matter, but contrary to the impression that he is seeking to create, the provisions will substantially increase the amount of help given to disabled people in the next few years.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: May I join in welcoming the partial uprating of child benefit, but advise my right hon. Friend that the decision to give the increase in respect of the first-born appears to be a radical change in the system of child benefit that we have had thus far? If we seek to provide most assistance to those most in need, would it not be fairer to recognise that some of the largest families are some of the least well-off families? Might it not therefore be better to have a smaller uprating for all children rather than a larger uprating only for the first?

Mr. Newton: These things are obviously matters of judgment, and I have outlined the reasons for my judgment. Larger families are, on the whole, much more likely to be receiving one of the income-related benefits, including family credit. About 40 per cent. of families with


more than three children are being helped either by income support or family credit, which we have improved substantially in recent years.

Mr. Dave Nellist: The Secretary of State said that the arrival of the first child is most frequently associated with a sharp reduction in family income. What real effect does he expect £1 a week to have on that, especially when, with £1 a week, it will take about one and half years to save up for a second-hand pram, and more than three years to save for a new cot? We should compare that with the position of directors earning £70,000 a year who, in the past 10 years, have received £600 per week in tax cuts from the Government. Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that most parents will see his announcement as being a transparent attempt at Elastoplast politics by Tory Ministers who are on £1,000 per week and have not a clue about the real costs of bringing up children?

Mr. Newton: I do not think that the nearly 7 million mothers who will receive an extra pound a week in child benefit will engage in the kind of political posturing in which the hon. Gentleman indulges.

Mr. David Nicholson: At a time of a tough spending round, with other Departments pressing for increases in real resources, my right hon. Friend deserves warm congratulations for having secured these nuggets. He will recall the meaning of that expression from an earlier incarnation. Is he aware that we welcome the fact that, despite the attention that will rightly be given to the increase in spending on the family, my right hon. Friend has not forgotten the poorer pensioners and the long-term sick and disabled?

Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend because that is precisely what I have sought to do—to bring forward what I regard as a balanced package, looking broadly at the needs of families. I sense that most of my right hon. and hon. Friends think that that was the right thing to do.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Nothing that the Secretary of State has said today will compensate those pensioners who have been crippled with £20, £30 and £40 per month poll tax bills and who will receive only £5

perweek extra as a result of his statement today, notwithstanding the fact that the wealthiest 1 per cent. in our society have received more than £26,000 million from the Government in tax cuts in the past 10 years. The pensioner in Downing street is living on £8 million per year from the taxpayer. That keeps her in Downing street and Chequers and as she gallivants around the world while 10 million other pensioners have to make do with an extra £5 per week. Does not that sum up the Government's attitude to the welfare state?

Mr. Newton: In this statement, we have fully fulfilled our commitments to raise the retirement pension and to steer some additional help to less-well-off pensioners. But for the taxation and economic policies that the Government have pursued over 10 years and more, it would have been far more difficult to sustain the improvements that I have announced this afternoon.

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on so effectively fighting his corner on behalf of all those mothers who depend on child benefit and have lived in uncertainty for the past three years.
Will he, however, acknowledge that there have been difficulties in giving help to the most needy families by targeting family credit? The money was there, but families were not always forthcoming. I hope that that lesson on targeting will help to convince him, as it has convinced me, that the present procedure for child benefit is the most popular and should remain a universal benefit. My right hon. Friend was absolutely right not to cause a divide by separating the under-fives from older children.
Could I also ask——

Mr. Speaker: No.

Mr. Newton: I suppose that I, too, had better be brief.
I hear what my hon. Friend says and I am grateful to her. I am not sure that I want to refer to "fighting my corner" with the Chief Secretary. As I have said three times, we agreed on these matters a fortnight ago.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am very sorry that I could not call those hon. Members who wished to speak. I shall certainly bear them in mind when we return to the subject.

Terrorist Attacks (Northern Ireland)

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Brooke): I regret to report that in the past two days seven people have been murdered by the Provisional IRA in three attacks in Northern Ireland. We must be grateful that a fourth attempted attack failed. This follows a number of other terrorist attacks in recent weeks, in which members of both communities have been brutally murdered. I know that the House will join me in extending sympathy to the families of all those killed and injured and also to those used as hostages in these atrocities.
First, at approximately 11.25 am yesterday, Mr. William Aiken, a taxi driver, was at the entrance to the Royal Belfast hospital for sick children. Two unmasked gunmen approached his Ford Sierra car, shot him in the head, and made off towards the Falls road. Mr. Aiken died a short time later from his injuries. The RUC are investigating and have appealed for witnesses.
Shortly after 4 o'clock this morning, a massive bomb exploded at the permanent vehicle checkpoint on the Buncrana road out of Londonderry, a few hundred yards from the border with the Irish Republic. The bomb is estimated to have consisted of about 750 kg of home-made explosive. It is thought that the bomb was contained in a vehicle which was driven into a search bay at the checkpoint. As a result of this attack, five soldiers were killed and nine injured, one very seriously.
The soldiers killed were serving with the 1st battalion the King's Regiment, based at Ballykelly. A number of civilian motorists in the area at the time of the explosion narrowly escaped death or injury. The checkpoint and about 25 houses in a nearby estate were extensively damaged; some residents were injured and many other houses sustained blast damage.
Prior to the attack, a house in Londonderry was taken over by terrorists and the householder abducted while his family was held hostage. He is still missing and there is grave concern about his safety. The follow-up operation by the security forces on both sides of the border is continuing and close co-operation is being maintained with the Garda, who have arrested a number of men earlier today.
In a separate terrorist attack at around 4.15 this morning, a bomb exploded at the permament vehicle checkpoint at Cloghogue on the main Al road south of Newry, some three miles from the border with the Irish Republic. It is believed that the bomb was contained in a van which had earlier been hijacked by terrorists near Newry and was driven into the checkpoint. An elderly man had been forced by terrorists to drive this vehicle while his family were held hostage.
As a result of this attack, one soldier was killed and 11 soldiers and two RUC officers were slightly injured. The soldier killed was serving with the 2nd battalion Royal Irish Rangers. Fortunately, a shouted warning was able to be given, thus preventing further loss of life. The driver of the vehicle received a broken leg as a result of the explosion and is now in hospital. Homes, a church and a primary school were all damaged in the attack. A follow-up operation by the security forces is now under way.
In a further incident at about 7.45 this morning, terrorists made an unsuccessful bomb attack against

Lisanelly barracks in Omagh. The terrorists had previously taken over a house in Gortin and assaulted the householder. They then placed an explosive device in his car, tied him to his seat, and forced him to drive the vehicle to Omagh. Fortunately, he was released by the sentry before the bomb partially detonated, and there were no casualties. The security forces are now carrying out a follow-up operation to make the bomb safe.
I am sure that the whole House will join me in utter condemnation of these appalling attacks. One civilian and six soldiers have been killed. A civilian is missing. A number of civilians and members of the security forces have been injured and one is very seriously ill. The security forces personnel were carrying out their proper duties in Northern Ireland for the safety of the whole community. Today's attacks have also seen the callous exploitation by the terrorists of members of the public in mounting these attacks. Not only has the IRA once again damaged and destroyed houses, schools and churches, leaving families injured, devastated and homeless; it has sunk to new levels of depravity by using people, whose families have been held hostage, as human bombs. It is hard to imagine anything more evil than tying a man into his car laden with explosives and then forcing him to drive to where the bomb was detonated.
The reaction of humane men and women the world over at crimes of this enormity is one of outrage, and justified anger. It is also, in the case of Northern Ireland, one of infinite sadness at this further and futile waste of human life. I can, however, assure the House that, horrible as these murders have been, they have not advanced the cause of those who perpetrated them by a single millimetre—indeed, they have set it back still further.
The security forces—to whom, today more than ever, I pay the warmest of tributes—will continue to defend the community and to bring terrorists to justice. They undertake this difficult and dangerous task on behalf of the whole community—and we owe an immense debt of gratitude to them.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: On behalf of the Opposition, I join the Secretary of State in extending our sympathy to the families of the victims and to all those whose lives have been so severely affected by the actions of the Provisional IRA and by the Ulster Freedom Fighters. As well as extending sympathy to the families of those murdered in the past 36 hours, the House will want to extend its sympathy to the families of Mr. Craig and Mr. McGuinness.
The murder of Mr. Aiken yesterday morning was an appalling overture to this morning's carnage. The IRA's choice of a children's hospital as a suitable venue for murder has sickened many people in Britain, Northern Ireland and particularly west Belfast. The House will wish to pay tribute to the efforts of both the unions and 'he management to ensure that no sections of the community will be deprived of the services of an internationally renowned children's hospital because of the activities of sectarian assassins.
I have heard—perhaps the Secretary of State can confirm it—that regrettably there has been another murder this afternoon. It was tit for tat for the murder of Mr. Aiken. To that unfortunate victim's family we also extend our sympathy.
This morning's atrocities also inspire us with horror. The death and destruction inflicted only highlights the


political and moral bankruptcy of the IRA. As the Secretary of State has said, it is difficult to imagine anything more evil than the treatment meted out to the men forced to drive car bombs while their families were held hostage and did not know whether they would see their fathers and husbands again as they departed as human bombs.
If the IRA believes that such murders can further its cause, it is only deluding itself. It cannot offer anything positive for the future of Ireland—it offers only dead ends and graveyards. We hope that the security forces will soon bring the perpetrators of those evil deeds to justice. We welcome the co-operation of the Irish authorities in that respect.
The House will want to join me in thanking the Northern Ireland emergency services, the Housing Executive and social services staff for their efforts since the early hours of the morning to cope with the aftermath of the personal and environmental damage inflicted, particularly on Benview estate.
The Secretary of State and his advisers will no doubt want to review the security situation, particularly the policy of maintaining permanent vehicle checkpoints.
The House trusts that the Secretary of State will continue the fight against the paramilitaries on the basis that only the determined and persistent application of the rule of law can ultimately end the violence in Ireland.

Mr. Brooke: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the tone in which he has spoken. I share his condemnation of the events at the hospital for sick children yesterday. I can confirm that a further incident has occurred today and that the body of a taxi driver has been found in Dungannon. It is reasonable to assume that it is yet another tit-for-tat murder.
I share the hon. Gentleman's praise for the authorities who have worked to cope with the aftermath of last night's events. The lessons that could be learnt from such episodes will be learnt and, above all, the conduct of the security forces will continue, as always, under the rule of law.

Mr. Michael Mates: In reinforcing my right hon. Friend's determination and that of the security forces—rightly commended by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara)—to continue to do a difficult job, will he use all the efforts of his considerable propaganda machine to get the message across to citizens north and south in the island of Ireland that, by sheltering people who are prepared to stoop so low to commit ever more ghastly crimes, they are aiding, perhaps passively, the cause of the terrorists?
The best thing that citizens on both sides of the border can do is to tell the security forces where those murderers are, so that they can be brought to justice. Given the turn the IRA has taken in its depravity, my right hon. Friend should warn such citizens that they might well be used next as human bombs to be delivered to the security forces.

Mr. Brooke: I thank my hon. Friend for his tribute to the security forces. I confirm that there is a constant appeal to members of the public throughout the community—we also receive assistance from the republic—for help to bring such terrorists to justice.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence uses the words "propaganda machine", is that exactly a parliamentary term?

Mr. Speaker: I did not judge it to be out of order in this context.

Mr. John D. Taylor: The Secretary of State has made a grave statement to the House this afternoon. He referred not only to the immediate incidents that occurred in the past 24 hours, but to earlier incidents that have occurred in the past few weeks.
In the past few weeks, there has been a regrettable upsurge in IRA activity across Northern Ireland and, unfortunately, that activity involved the deaths of two of my constituents. Constable Louis Robinson was killed on the border as he travelled back from holiday in the Republic of Ireland and Constable Samuel Todd was shot dead as he handled his dog on the streets of Belfast.
Right hon. and hon. Members on the Ulster Unionist Bench join the Secretary of State in expressing our sympathy to the families whose relatives have been killed and injured. In so doing, we speak for the entire Protestant community of Northern Ireland and at least 75 per cent. of the Roman Catholic community. Regrettably today, almost 25 per cent. of the Roman Catholic community vote for Provisional Sinn Fein, as in west Belfast.
We join the Secretary of State in condemning the latest low level of depravity exercised by the IRA earlier this morning, when its members tied the driver of a car to the time bomb that he was instructed to drive in the hope that he would be blown up into small bits. I hope that that did not happen. The IRA has reduced itself to a terrible low by such action.
There are three questions that I should like to ask the Secretary of State. The first relates to the prompt action and co-operation of the Garda Siochana in apprehending suspected terrorists in Donegal. Will that lead to anything? When the Government signed the Anglo-Irish Agreement, they sold it to many hon. Members on the basis that it would bring about improved extradition. Five years later, we know to our regret that, successful as the Garda Siochana is in capturing wanted terrorists, they are never extradited by the authorities back to Northern Ireland. Tomorrow, when the Secretary of State meets the Dublin Government authorities, will he ensure that extradition is the No. 1 item on the agenda?
The second issue relates to border roads. I have already mentioned that one of my constituents was murdered on a border road coming back from the Republic of Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) visited the republic last week and he was not allowed to use the roads: he had to fly to Dublin. I went to the republic on Friday and discovered that, even though I was accompanied by security forces, I was forbidden to use two of the main roads between Northern Ireland and the republic. Has the Secretary of State yet advised the Prime Minister that the British Government have surrendered authority over two of the main roads in Northern Ireland leading across the border into the republic?
Finally, I should like to ask the Secretary of State about dog handlers. My constituent was shot through the window of his stationary van. For more than a year, the small number of dog handlers that are employed in the


Royal Ulster Constabulary have requested bullet-proof glass in their vans. That request has been consistently refused on the ground of lack of finance. It would take so little money to provide bullet-proof glass in the few vans used by dog handlers—perhaps the life of my constituent could have been saved. Will the Secretary of State please address that problem?

Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks, speaking as he does for those sitting on the Ulster Unionist Bench. I join him in extending sympathy to the families of his two constituents, of whom I am aware.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the apprehension of suspects by the Garda today and to extradition. I shall see the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the republic tomorrow at a meeting of the Conference, and I guarantee that extradition will take up a large part of our discussion.
I note what the right hon. Gentleman said about security on particular roads. The security forces must necessarily make their own decisions about what is required to provide safe passage and security on those roads. I should be happy, however, to enter into a separate dialogue with the right hon. Gentleman on that matter.
His question about dog handlers and their cars is not strictly germane to today's statement, but I am grateful to him for raising that matter, which I shall pursue.

Mr. James Kilfedder: I should like first to join in the expressions of sympathy to the relatives of the men killed in the outrages. They died to protect all the people in Northern Ireland, regardless of their political or religious faith. Is the Secretary of state aware that the men who commit such crimes are depraved? They revel in slaughter and are way beyond persuasion to show mercy and deaf to pleas for pity. They reject Christ's teaching about the sanctity of human life.
During the past 20 years, from the Dispatch Box, successive Secretaries of State have promised a security review after each atrocity. We have had those security reviews, expressions of sympathy, condolences, platitudes—everything—but the truth is that terrorists continue to kill innocent people in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. The people of Northern Ireland expect constitutional politicians to respond to the outrages by redoubling their efforts to make political advance in Northern Ireland. They also expect the Government——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but will he be kind enough to ask questions rather than make a speech that should be made on another occasion?

Mr. Kilfedder: I am putting it to the Secretary of State that the people of Northern Ireland, who have seen the Government send an armada to the Falkland Islands and forces to the Gulf, expect the Government to send sufficient forces to Northern Ireland and keep them there until this evil is eradicated.

Mr. Brooke: The same word "depravity" was included in my statement. Of course, it would be difficult for any Government, in an environment polluted by terrorists, to be able to guarantee total security to the citizens of this land. The defeat of terrorism involves more than purely the working of the security forces, central though they are

to it. More people have been charged and convicted in relation to terrorist offences during the current year than in the previous one.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: Speaking on behalf, I hope, of all people in the north of Ireland who value life, irrespective of their political persuasions, I wish to condemn this and other murders, and to offer my sympathy to the bereaved. I ask anyone in the north of Ireland with any information whatsoever about those who perpetrated the recent acts to make it available to the police, so that those responsible may be brought to justice.
Early this morning, I stood at the scene in my constituency of the murder of one of the soldiers in Cloghogue. Once again, I saw the grisly remains of an IRA night of carnage.
The murders at Derry, Cloghogue and Belfast, and the potential murder at Omagh, were particularly cynical, cowardly and evil. They were cynical because they involved hijacking and kidnapping people, and taking their families as hostages. They were cowardly because, on those occasions, the IRA, rather than do its own dirty work, took innocent members of the public and made them drive its bombs to the scenes of murderous destruction. They were evil because, above all else, they added to the appalling violence that is tearing the heart and soul out of the fabric of Northern Irish life. Will the Secretary of State reinforce my view that those murders were evil, cowardly and cynical?

Mr. Brooke: I am particularly grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the vehemence of his condemnation. I know the extent to which his constituency in particular has been stricken by murder during the course of this year. I am sure that the House is grateful for the manner in which he has just spoken.

Mr. Henry Bellingham: I endorse the sentiments expressed by the Secretary of State, but is he satisfied with the co-operation that he has received from the Southern Irish Government? It certainly looks as if the excellent work of the Garda Siochana could not have come about were it not for the progress made under the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Will he comment generally on future co-operation with the Southern Irish Government on cross-border security matters?

Mr. Brooke: I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the Garda's actions today and the co-operation that we have received from it. Intensive investigations are in progress on both sides of the border, and I reported the arrest of a number of men by the Garda. I shall be seeing Mr. Collins, the Irish Foreign Minister, at a conference tomorrow, when we shall discuss the border issue and its consequences for security.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Does the Secretary of State not agree that the justification for the cowardly killings by the Provisional IRA over the years that it represents the aspirations of people in all of Ireland is disproved by the fact that its total vote is about 2 per cent. of the people of Ireland? What we hear from the elected representatives in the north is the true voice of the people of Ireland. All the Provisional IRA does is prevent any political action and, sadly, encourages tit-for-tat murders.
I shall ask a precise question. As someone IA ho no longer has a detailed knowledge of the subject, I thought


that the use of large agricultural nitrate bombs, topped up with small amounts of commercial explosive and commercial detonators, had declined but it seems to be increasing. Do we no longer know the origin of the commercial part of such devices by markings and scientific tests? Surely we could find out where the commercial parts for such bombs come from.

Mr. Brooke: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to the total lack of popular support in democratic terms enjoyed by the terrorists. As to his specific question about fertiliser, as far as we can ascertain, much of what is used is commercial, but of long standing.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Is my right hon. Friend convinced that static security checkpoints are the best way to impose security on roads in Northern Ireland? Does he think that there is something to be said for a review of their success and the possibility of introducing mobile checkpoints, as suggested by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara)?

Mr. Brooke: There is a need to control movement across the border to interdict the movement of terrorists and terrorist munitions, to reassure the local community that maximum control is exercised over the border area and to provide protection to security force bases and installations. Clearly, as I said earlier, we shall review matters arising out of the recent incidents. The House is aware that about 1,000 mobile vehicle checkpoints are mounted every night in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Roy Beggs: I also join in extending heartfelt sympathy on behalf of my constituents to the relatives of all those who have suffered bereavement because of the latest barbaric IRA bombings. My constituent, Cyril John Smith, was a young man serving with the Royal Irish Rangers. Like those in the King's

Regiment, who courageously took on a role to protect the community and give service to all its sections, he was murdered. The lives of those people have been taken from them by evil, depraved men.
Will the Secretary of State undertake to ensure that those young men's lives will not have been sacrificed in vain? Will he deprive the IRA of its objective, and ensure that both politically and militarily the Government will bring an end to the carnage that we have suffered for 20 years? Will he further consider the reasonable justification for limited selective internment for those believed to be involved in terrorist activity? Since the IRA has declared war on our society, will he also give serious consideration to bringing in legislation to ensure that those who are convicted are held in prison for as long as this war of theirs is waged on our people?

Mr. Brooke: I join the hon. Gentleman in what he said about his constituent, to whom I pay a particular tribute for his contribution to the security forces, and in saying that the House is concerned that those lives should not have been spent in vain, that democracy continues to be defended and that the terrorism is brought to an end in Northern Ireland and throughout the United Kingdom.
I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that other judges will take the view that selective internment is not the most constructive way forward. I would not use the particular words used by the hon. Gentleman in his last remarks, but I am conscious that we are dealing with vicious criminals and that the sooner their activities cease the better for the whole of the kingdom.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I apologise to those hon. Members whom I have not been able to call, but we must move on.

SCOTTISH AFFAIRS

Ordered,
That the matter of Education in Scotland, being a matter relating exclusively to Scotland, be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee for its consideration.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

Procedure

Mr. Speaker: We come now to the five motions on the Order paper.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet.
I suggest that the five motions be debated together. I have selected all the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). I remind the House that all the outstanding Questions will be put at 7 o'clock.

Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for rising when you were on your feet, but you will understand that I did so because of your suggestion that the motions be taken together. You will know that the five motions on the Order Paper, which must, by order of the House last Friday, be completed, if moved, by 7 pm, are on two separate and distinct subjects.
The first two motions refer to questions and a report from the Select Committee on Procedure and subsequent Standing Orders on which there may be some debate. The next three motions relate to the important topic of the scrutiny of EC legislation, for which there are substantial and significant proposals which have been arrived at after considerable debate, and to Standing Orders from the Leader of the House, to which there are amendments which, as you have mentioned, Mr. Speaker, you have kindly selected.
If those motions are taken together, as you suggest, Mr. Speaker, they would involve two separate topics. The second one is complex enough on its own and, in view of the time constraint rightly or wrongly agreed by the House, may we at least start by discussing the first two on their own?

Mr. Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman correctly mentioned, the motion to take them together was passed last Friday, and that being so I do not think that I have any authority to say that they should now be taken separately. I understand that the first two motions are not very controversial. The debate may therefore centre upon motions 3, 4 and 5, which are of great importance to the House.

Mr. Spearing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful for your ruling. On cursory examination, the order of the House on Friday referred to all the motions together, but do I take it that they should and could not be separated, although they are separate motions on the Order Paper? That is surely a novelty of which the House should take note.

Mr. Speaker: There is no obligation on the Government to move the motions at 7 pm, but the order passed last Friday put all five motions together. The vote will be taken at 7 pm, but it would be up to the Leader of the House not to move any specific motion if he felt that there had been insufficient time to debate it.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I understand the point raised by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), but we should try to make headway along the lines which you, Mr. Speaker, foreshadowed in your

original response. These two sets of recommendations emerged from considered proposals by the Procedure Committee. The first two, as you pointed out, have riot been the subject of any controversy that I have been able to detect; the next three were the subject of a debate lasting some five hours before we rose and two of those three embody recommendations agreed with the Scrutiny Committee. There is one issue of substance to be discussed on that trio of motions, and that is embodied in the set of amendments standing in the name of the Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee. On that basis, I shall proceed on the footing that the debate deals with oral questions and EC procedure.
I beg to move,
That this House agrees with the recommendations contained in the First Report of the Select Committee on Procedure of this Session (House of Commons Paper No. 379).

Mr. Spearing: Despite what I think was a ruling from Mr. Speaker, who has just departed, will the Leader of the House confirm that it would be possible tor the Government to deal with motions 1 and 2 in one debate and to move motions 3, 4 and 5 if there was time later? Do I understand from what the Leader of the House has said that he is moving motions 1 to 5 at this moment?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As Mr. Speaker pointed out, the motions are moved one by one, but they are debated together and all five are now being debated. I have sa far moved the first one and on that basis I am commencing the debate.
The first motion is one of two dealing with questions. We have less time than I would have hoped to deal with the matter, but I did deal with it at some length on a previous occasion, so I shall try to proceed expeditiously in the light of the time available.
The first two motions on oral questions deal essentially with the number of oral questions that appear on the Order Paper, the proportion of them reached and the method by which they are tabled. I content myself with saying that the Procedure Committee's recommendations are sound and sensible, and can be justified on their merits. They will give us substantial cost savings, as well as achieving a major simplification of the Order Paper. The one fact that I will produce is that the total cost of printing questions and answers last Session is estimated at £1·38 million. If adopted, the recommendations in the report could lead to savings of up to £750,000 in printing costs alone, so there is everything to be said in their favour.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Are we clear that questions must be personally handed into the Table Office by the Member concerned and that no colleague can do so, and that the whole scandal of syndication, for such it is, and handing in great wads of questions will come to an end?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: One of the central purposes of the recommendation is to tackle so-called syndication. The recommendations in paragraph 35 of the report are intended to achieve just that result. It says:
oral questions should be tabled by a Member in person, or by another Member acting on his or her behalf … no Member should be permitted to table more than two oral questions per Minister (one for himself and one for another Member), subject to the existing rations for individual Members".


The recommendations are well considered and were widely circulated before the Committee reached its conclusion.

Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: Will my right hon. and learned Friend, either now or at some later stage, give us a breakdown of the £1·38 million to show how much each question costs?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall try to give the standard answer to that. It is always larger than one thinks, because it has gone up since last time.

Mr. Tim Smith: Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the new Standing Orders relating to oral questions incorporate all the Procedure Committee's recommendations? I refer to the instruction that
Notices of questions shall be given by Members in writing to the Table Office.
Does that mean that right hon. and hon. Members must turn up in person at the Table Office to hand in their questions?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I understand it, the new Standing Orders embody the Committee's recommendations. Certain practical aspects of them need to be handled in the Table Office, and in commending them, as we do in one of the motions, we give our authority to the Table Office to proceed in that way.
The measures relating to European Standing Committees were debated on 28 June, and I explained then the ways in which the Government's response was intended to help bring our scrutiny procedures up to date. I indicated that, in the light of the debate, the Government would be drawing up detailed proposals to put before the House with the aim of operating the new arrangements from the start of the new Session.
The third motion on the Order Paper would repeal Standing Order No. 102 and establish three new Standing Committees. The fourth motion would amend Standing Order No. 127 in respect of the terms of reference of the Scrutiny Committee, and the fifth motion is a resolution of the House to supersede that of 13 October 1980.
The motion relating to Standing Order No. 127 was agreed after discussion with the Scrutiny Committee, and I am grateful to its Chairman for its help. The measure offers a useful, albeit modest, extension of the Committee's terms of reference that I know it welcomes. The draft resolution was also agreed with the Scrutiny Committee and fully reflects recommendation 13 of the Procedure Committee's report. It embodies the Government's previous undertaking that the resolution would cover any proposal awaiting scrutiny as well as any recommended for debate.
I turn to the substantive proposals relating to European Standing Committees. The amendment to Standing Order No. 102 will establish three new Committees. The one outstanding point on which there is a significant difference of view is the proposal in paragraphs (1) and (2) that all documents recommended for debate will automatically stand referred to one of those Committees unless a motion is tabled to hold a debate on the Floor of the House.
The amendments that have been tabled would replace that arrangement with a variant of the present referral system, increasing the so-called 20-up rule to a 40-up rule. However, if, as we hope, the majority of debates will in

future take place in Committee, it seems logical that a motion should only be tabled for the exception rather than the rule.
The new arrangements will allow more effective scrutiny in Committee, so it is crucial that they are allowed to get under way and be given a chance to work. It will be open to the Scrutiny Committee to recommend that a particular document be debated on the Floor of the House if it regards it as especially important, and the Government would naturally take any such recommendation into account. There would also be the normal consultations through the usual channels.
Against that background, I invite the House to agree to the Government's proposals. I am of course prepared to give a commitment that the new system of referral will be reviewed at the end of the first Session of operation, along with other aspects of the new arrangement.
I may add that the fourth amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Newham, South is a necessary technical amendment that the Government are glad to accept.
I hope that other details of the operation of the new Committees will be clear from our previous debate and from the proposals that the Government have tabled. In the light of the time available, and because there was broad agreement on most points in our earlier debate, I do not propose to go into those other aspects in detail—particularly bearing in mind our willingness to review the arrangements at the end of the next Session.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: The most crucial aspect of my right hon. and learned Friend's remarks is the procedure for referral, to allow a debate to take place on the Floor of the House. The arrangements that my right hon. and learned Friend announced appear to hand all power to the Government. The Government alone will make the decision—after some consultation through the usual channels, if the Opposition are lucky. I simply want to record my belief that such a scheme will not be acceptable to that minority who seek to question European documents—often without the necessary approval of members of their own Front Bench, yet with enormous approval from the country at large.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend's point fortifies itself, in a sense. He wants to ensure that representations made by the kind of minority with which he associates himself are given a proper hearing. We seek to ensure that views not normally heard at the end of the day's business, which would detain the House for a long time, may be advanced in the European Standing Committees at which any right hon. or hon. Member is entitled to speak. In that way, such representations will be considered at a better time of day by specialised Committees in which Ministers will be required to give evidence as well as speak to the proposals under consideration. The method of scrutiny will be more thorough and will incommode the House as a whole less frequently. However, it will still be possible to make representations for matters to be debated on the Floor of the House, as I described.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Why is my right hon. and learned Friend opposing a less rigorous means of enforcing proper procedures in the face of a vehement minority or even majority? To get 40 right hon. and hon. Members to stand in their places requires a degree of organisation and fleetness of foot that is difficult


to achieve. It is only suggested that such a thing should be made possible. It would not destroy the tenor of my right hon. and learned Friend's argument that such matters should usually be considered in Committee.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend reflects a point made by the Chairman of the Procedure Committee in our earlier debate who emphasised that, in the main, the same will happen, whatever the balance of the proposed arrangements, and that the majority of documents would anyway be considered in Standing Committee. We are only suggesting that, during the initial period, that should happen automatically, but that representations can be made if right hon. or hon. Members want to follow a different course.
Nevertheless, we hope to see the Committees operating normally and acceptably in the way that I have described. Clearly, that topic can be the subject of further discussion, as my hon. Friend's interventions indicated. Subject to that, I commend the other arrangements as reflecting the gist of the recommendations made by the Procedure Committee and endorsed in the last debate. My hon. Friends have both identified areas for discussion that the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) may care to develop. In other words, they have spoken to his amendment. I commend the motion to the House.

Dr. John Cunningham: I can begin by wholly agreeing with the Leader of the House in his proposed changes for dealing with oral questions. I am sure that will be met with a sigh of relief—particularly by members of Opposition Front Benches who have had to organise against the fusillade organised by Government Whips in an attempt to pre-empt Question Time.

Mr. Greg Knight: That is an outrageous suggestion.

Dr. Cunningham: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I, as both a participant in and victim of that system, know very well how it operates—and I for one will not be sorry to see it come to an end.
As for the cost of parliamentary questions in general, I hope that hon. Members will reflect on the fact that, if they support the unanimous report of the Computer Sub-Committee, which will give us an on-line information system for Members, some of the need to table questions—particularly written—will disappear. I hope that that report will command support when it is brought before the House, because it will make the seeking and dissemination of information far more efficient and cost-effective.
As the House knows, I and the Government have some differences of view on the manner in which we deal with EC legislation. Those differences were set out at length—as was the Government's position—on 28 June this year. I shall briefly summarise my objections to what the Leader of the House is asking the House to agree. Despite my differences with the view of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, however, I hope that we can come to a decision this evening and not put it off yet again. We can then have a trial period.
One of the most important statements made by the Leader of the House today was also said by him on 28 June:

So, for strictly practical and not for philosophical reasons, we propose to start by setting up three Committees and to review the matter at the end of the first Session."—[Offical Report, 28 June 1990; Vol. 175, c.528.]
I welcome the fact that that commitment to a review has been put on record again this evening.
My reservations concern, first, the practicability of three separate Committees. I should have preferred the idea, in the evidence submitted by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), of a European Grand Committee—but I am happy to have a trial. Secondly, I share the fairly widespread reservation about the House conceding a right to the Executive, whichever party happens to be in power. I favour the House strengthening its position vis-a-vis the Executive, not weakening it. Perhaps the Leader of the House can find room for a concession on this matter. I also hope that he will say a little more about how the review of the trial period will be carried out at the end of the first Session in which these proposals have been in practice.

Sir Peter Emery: I shall be as brief as I can because of the shortage of time for the debate.
It is obvious that the influence and power of European Community regulations and laws over United Kingdom citizens have increased in the past, are increasing today and will increase much more in future. While this Parliament in Westminster can do little to stop that extension of power over our sovereignty, it is my view and that of the Procedure Committee that it is essential that Parliament should more fully consider, and that more Members should come to understand, debate and comment upon, the plethora of regulations being churned out by the Community before they are confirmed.
The motions on the Order Paper establish an entirely new procedure to ensure that this can be achieved. They do so by moving from debates late at night to consideration in proper business hours, in the morning in Committee. They ensure that not only the nominated members of Committees but any Member can attend a Committee and, if he can catch the Chair's eye, participate in the deliberations there. They provide that Ministers responsible for the regulations or the legislation being proposed by the Community may be cross-questioned in a way similar to what happens in a Select Committee before a motion that can be amended, debated and voted on by the Committee. And they will ensure that for a Session of Parliament a small band of Members will be appointed to a Committee who should be able to become expert in the subject referred to that European Standing Committee.
The consideration of documents referred to the European Standing Committee and the dates and times of these meetings will be announced by the Leader of the House during his weekly statement on proceedings and will be included in the party Whips. So everyone in the House is being given the opportunity and the encouragement not only to know what regulations are coming from Brussels but to take part in the consideration of those regulations and to ensure that the Minister in charge knows the views of interested Members before he returns to Brussels for the final decision on the regulation.
Although the Committee recommended that there should be five European Standing Committees—we rejected the idea of a Grand Committee because we believed that it would be permanently in session and we do


not believe that that would make sense—we were quite willing to see three appointed initially. I know that the Government will keep that under review, as they have given an undertaking to that effect.
In the subject reference to the Committees in motion No. 3 at the top of page 6588 on the Order Paper, finance and taxation have not been mentioned, yet they are the third largest of the subjects of regulations and documents passed by the Community. Supposedly, they would be taken by the third Committee, but as they feature in many of the regulations now and may well continue to do so in future, they should be noted as a subject for the third Committee. I stress that, because the Procedure Committee hopes that, as only a limited number of Members—10 in all—are appointed to each Committee, Members especially interested in the subjects covered by those Committees will apply to be appointed to them. So hon. Members who are interested in finance should realise that they should be particularly interested in the third Committee.
I believe that this is a major improvement, because, for the first time, a really informed core of Members will consider European legislation on which they have expertise. Under the present system, when a document is referred to Committee, that Committee provides a random selection—I was going to say a ragbag—of Members to constitute a Committee examining a subject in which they may have no interest and about which they may have little information.

Mr. Tim Smith: Does my hon. Friend know how the subject matters were allocated to the Standing Committees? Would it not have been more sensible to put finance, taxation, trade and industry together in one Committee—for the reasons that he has just given?

Sir Peter Emery: It might well have been. I can only tell my hon. Friend that the allocations were made as suggested in the resolution. It works out rather well, in view of the figures for the past two years: the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of the Environment—the AGE Committee—have been concerned with about 506 documents; the Departments of Trade and Industry and Transport—presumably the TIT Committee—with 318; and finance and taxation Departments—presumably the FAT Committee—with 321. So the subjects are fairly evenly spread.
It is not immediately obvious from the wording of motions Nos. 1 and 2 that the outcome of those motions will be to try to overcome the relatively new procedure for the syndication of questions and to cut down the number of—I was going to say useless—oral questions on the Order Paper which are never reached but which appear day after day.
The House should know that Mr. Speaker has the power, reinforced by motion No. 1, to introduce the new structure as outlined in the Procedure Committee's report. The most important effect of that will be that large bunches of questions will no longer be allowed to be handed in by a Whip or a Back-Bench party committee officer, or anyone else.
I have no doubt that ingenious organisations may still try to get around these new regulations—that always happens—which lay down that a Member or, if he cannot

be present, a Member on his behalf can hand in a question to the Table Office, but I hope that the House will accept the opinion of the Procedure Committee that the syndication of questions is bad for Parliament, that it removes the initial intention behind questions and that it limits the power of the ordinary Member to have matters that concern him or his constituents dealt with at Question Time.
I understand the concern felt by a number of hon. Members, particularly those serving on the Scrutiny Committee, which has resulted in the tabling of the amendments. However, as we have so much from the Government at this stage, rather than delay the approval of these matters by yet another debate, I urge my hon. Friends to take the assurance given by the Leader of the House that this matter will be kept under review. In turn, I will give an assurance that the Procedure Committee will keep the matter under review so that, if it appears that the recommendation being made by the Scrutiny Committee, that matters should be taken on the Floor of the House, is not being carried out by the Government, we would so report to the Leader of the House.

Mr. Robert Hicks: I am a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation, which is also worried about what might be described as the external dimension. I understand why my hon. Friend's Committee has come to its conclusions, but the message that goes out from the House to the Council of Ministers, the European Commission, or whatever European authority it may be, may be downgraded as a consequence of our referring that issue to a Committee rather than taking it on the Floor of the House. Whether we are pro or anti-European, or however we may be judged as standing in the European context, we are all concerned about that.

Sir Peter Emery: I understand the point that my hon. Friend is making. One cannot deny, because there are no absolute facts that would allow us to deny, that that is possible. However, there is a counter-argument: that there has never been any suggestion that there was a different interpretation of the views of the House, either by a Minister when he goes to Brussels, or by Brussels itself, depending on whether the matter had been debated on the Floor of the House or referred to a Standing Committee. Therefore, I find it difficult to believe that that would be the case now.
I hope that the assurance that I give my hon. Friend—obviously I want to see co-operation between my Committee and the Scrutiny Committee—that if it should feel that its recommendation that matters should be debated on the Floor of the House is seen not to be followed through by the Government, we shall look at this and report after 12 months. I hope that this is of assistance both to the Government and to the Chairman of the Procedure Committee.
I thank the Leader of the House for his comments about the work of my Committee, but he is due much greater thanks for the fact that, for the first time since the days of Norman St. John-Stevas, we have a Leader of the House who is interested in modernising and making more effective the work of the House, and who is willing to do something about it. If he is not careful, the Leader of the House will establish a reputation as a great reformer.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I apologise for the slight tone of acerbity with which I raised points of order at the beginning of the debate. When the business motion appeared on the Order Paper on Friday, one would have thought on a casual glance that, although we had a guillotine at 7 o'clock, we would notionally have two and a half hours of debate, and if there were a statement, perhaps two hours. However, a motion such as this is an open invitation to certain quarters to pile on the statements, and we are left not with one and a half or two and a half hours but one, for two subjects. That is not a good advertisement for the way in which we go about our business. Hence my concern at the beginning.
I pay tribute to the hard work of the Select Committee on Procedure and its report No. 622 of 1989, in which it went into the whole matter at great length and came up with some solutions, which we debated on 18 June. The exception to the agreement was the matter to which I shall come in a moment. I thank the Leader of the House for the way in which, with one exception, he has dealt with these matters.
As I said in that debate, the Select Committee has produced a special report, which was published the night before, HC512, in which we suggested that there should be a mutual agreement between the Select Committee on European Legislation and the Government on the terms of the proposed new Standing Order No. 127. The Leader of the House agreed with us, and that debate set a record in the number of recommendations accepted. I am glad to pay tribute to the Leader of the House, who has introduced Standing Order No. 127, under motion No. 4. There is mutual accord on that.
There is mutual accord on motion No. 5, which is important because it replaces a resolution of the House of October 1980, which, for the first time, set down the structure by which the House influences—I will not use any stronger word—the efforts, decisions and work of Ministers in the Council of Ministers. That report, in the name of the then Mr. St. John-Stevas, and the resolution attached to his name, are what we are now debating. The Committee has had regular correspondence, and I have had regular meetings, with successive Leaders of the House—the right hon. Members for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Wakeham) and for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen). We thank them for their work, which is now updated and incorporated in the motion that we hope to pass today.
I now pass on rapidly, because time does not allow for any further comment on those matters, to the motion about which there is a certain amount of disagreement. The amendments to the proposed Standing Order No. 102 are the unanimous view of the Select Committee on European Legislation. That Committee has on it a spectrum of both the parties and of the approach taken by hon. Members to the European Community. We are a procedural and scrutiny Committee, and we discharge the responsibilities put on us by the House in respect of the conduct of the Executive, irrespective of the merits of the matter. That is one of the central processes of the House. I am glad to say that my colleagues go about their work in that manner, and that enables us to discharge our duty with reasonable efficacy. That gives point to the fact that we are presenting these amendments unanimously.
The proposed Standing Order No. 102 implements a good many of the proposals made by the Select Committee on Procedure, as we have heard. In particular, it sets up three Special Standing Committees with a procedure of questioning Ministers for an hour before debating the merits of any EEC proposals. There have been comments about how that will work, the number of members on each Committee and the welcome continuation of the practice of allowing hon. Members to go to the Committees to question and debate matters. There have been remarks about the small forum, but I shall go no further than point that out.
However, there has been a fundamental difference of opinion over the manner in which it is decided which documents go to Committee and which go to the Floor of the House. In the past, the convention was that, if it was suggested that a subject was more suitable for consideration by a Select Committee, because it was a technical matter or one about which special knowledge was required, we said so. The Government moved a motion on the Floor of the House at 3.30 pm and the House agreed to it. That represents the choice of the House over how to deal with its own business.
The new Standing Order that has been moved by the Leader of the House would change all that. He made no bones about it in our debate on 28 June. Everything will go upstairs, unless a motion moved on the Floor of the House by a Minister of the Crown says otherwise. That sticks in the Committee's craw.
In conclusion, I shall read the recommendation in the Select Committee's report of 1989–90, HC512:
The Committee therefore rejects the Government's view that automatic referral is necessary to ensure that the changes envisaged in the Procedure Committee's report are carried through. It recommends that the revised arrangements should continue to be based on the principle that the House itself makes the reference to the Standing Committee. In this context, the Government should feel free to table a motion of referral to a Special Standing Committee on European Community Documents in respect of all documents where it has not identified a clear argument against debate in such a forum.
In other words, unless there is a good argument for debate on the Floor of the House, upstairs it goes. No one would disagree with that, but that must be the House's decision, not that of the Government. The latter represents an intrusion of Executive power on the Floor of the House, power which has historically been resisted.
The Leader of the House kindly said that there will be a review after a year. During that year the Government will probably watch their Ps and Qs. The Procedure Committee has agreed to review the matter. If it works well, as I hope it will, why not enshrine it in Standing Orders? Our amendments would put it there. Even at this late stage, I hope that the Leader of the House will say that, for reasons of parliamentary scrutiny and the international reputation that our work on European Community legislation is gaining, it would be a great pity if the House lost that little bit of power. It has been noted abroad that we have that power, and it is greatly admired. I should be very sorry if this Leader of the House were to be responsible for its diminution.

Mr. Bowen Wells: I heartily endorse all that has been said by the Chairman of the Select Committee on European Legislation, the hon.


Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), in particular his tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House and my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) for the work that they have done on the issue.
Although I accept with gratitude my right hon. and learned Friend's undertaking that after a year he will review the referral of matters to Select Committees, I must point out that "temporary" is a difficult term. Something that is temporary tends to become very permanent. It is difficult to change Standing Orders of the House. It takes a long time to produce reports and to get action on them taken on the Floor of the House. I am therefore cynical about the word "temporary."
I believe that it would be a mistake. First, we should lose unanimity that could not easily be regained. Secondly, because the terms of reference of the Select Committee on European Legislation would be broadened, reports would be produced that the Committee could recommend should be debated on the Floor of the House. For example, before the Madrid meeting of the Council of Ministers at which decisions were to be taken on whether Britain should join the exchange rate mechanism and on whether there should be monetary union, along the lines of the Delors report, reports were published by the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, the Foreign Affairs Select Committee and the European Legislation Select Committee.
The Government and the Conservative party believed that debate on the Floor of the House immediately before the county council elections would reveal divisions in the Conservative party which, politically, they could do without. I fully respect that political reason, but it is a very bad reason for the House avoiding a debate on an important constitutional issue.
By means of this motion we should be handing to the Executive the ability to repeat an appalling decision that was politically motivated. As the terms of reference are to be widened, more issues should be debated on the Floor of the House. The European Council is now the principal policy-making body of the Community. It meets in secret; we have to guess what its agenda is. Nevertheless, we manage to do so. We need to be able to debate those matters on the Floor of the House, on the recommendation of the Select Committee on European Legislation. Whether or not those matters should be debated on the Floor of the House should not be decided by the political party that is in power.
I have noted that the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) is keen, while in opposition, on strengthening the procedures of the House of Commons, but I wonder whether, when he gets into government, he will be quite so keen.

Dr. Cunningham: I said whichever party formed the Executive.

Mr. Wells: Exactly. However, whichever party is in power is reluctant to give it up and hand it back to the Floor of the House of Commons. I hope, therefore, that we shall not agree to the motion. It gives to the Executive the power to decide whether debates shall take place on important issues. I hope that the Select Committee on European Legislation will bring more of those issues to the Floor of the House because of the broadening of its terms

of reference. The motion would stultify that aim. That would be a great pity, since the Leader of the House has introduced a major reform which, with that exception, will serve the House well.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The 40-Member issue is relevant. I am sure that the Government will eventually concede the point, in order to please us all. The great majority of hon. Members do not have the slightest idea about the volume of European legislation. The only circumstances in which I envisage the 40-Member procedure being used is when all hon. Members receive a letter from the National Farmers Union and have to rise accordingly.
Is not there a danger that we are engaged in a conspiracy of silence to hide from the people of Britain what is happening? These are not minor regulations. They are fundamental measures that will change dramatically the laws of our country. It is not just one issue but several.
Yesterday we debated the exchange rate mechanism. Our trade figures with Germany are important. When I tabled a question a week ago I was told that I could obtain the information from the Library. All trade questions used to be published in Hansard, but during the past five months they have not been found there. They are transferred to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and we are told that we can obtain the information from the Library.
There are three different formulae for determining what are trade figures. Hon. Members are therefore placed in difficulty. The same applies to the mountains of food. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food told us at the Conservative party conference that the mountains of food had been wiped out because of the Government's reforms. Apparently, the mountains of food are increasing again because those reforms have not worked. Hon. Members cannot obtain information, however, about the size of the mountains. They are referred to a database in the House of Commons Library.
All European Community legislation used to be debated late at night because, we were told, most hon. Members would not be there; they did not want to listen to the debates. Not many hon. Members attended the debates and the Press Gallery was almost empty. But instead of having debates on the Floor of the House when hon. Members are beginning to pay some attention to European Community legislation, we intend to transfer consideration of that legislation to three Committees. The Committee members will be hand-picked. Hon. Members can go along and speak if they know what is coming up. However, we know that that will not happen.
We have to think of the public. I had a telephone message last night when I arrived home at 12.10 am. Somebody telephoned to say, "Mr. Taylor, I understand that the Government are banning the shooting of magpies and that you apparently have to obtain some licence. I just want to say that if you do not stop this, there will be another Eastbourne in Southend, East." The telephone went dead. I am sure that the call was from Rochford. That poor chap does not have the slightest idea that I can do nothing about whether we shoot magpies or need licences, as it is a decision of the EEC.
I had five letters this morning from nice ladies saying, "Dear Mr. Taylor, I understand that our laws to protect our cattle from being exported live are being stopped. Will


you please vote against it?" I had to write to those poor souls explaining that as a Member of Parliament I can do nothing about it. It will be decided by the Council of Ministers on a majority vote, irrespective of the views of Spanish fishermen or myself.
I am convinced that by referring these dramatic and important issues to a Standing Committee we are simply adding to the volume of silence. We are told by everyone that the Leader of the House is a great democrat. If he wants to ensure that we take these issues seriously, there is a simple answer. Instead of debating them after 10 o'clock at night and into the small hours or instead of referring them to a hand-picked Committee which will do its job and probably take the opportunity to visit Brussels and Japan at the same time, we could quite easily allow one day a week to discuss EEC issues. People would then hear about them and Ministers would be obliged to say what is going on. I do not think that it matters whether they are debated in Committee or on the Floor of the House or at any hour because they do not influence anything.
The Leader of the House's splendid motion No. 5 says that no Minister of the Crown can give agreement to any proposal that has not been scrutinised. That sounds fabulous. It sounds like a step forward in democracy. However, agreement is different from a common position, as the Leader of the House will be aware. Subsection (4) of the motion says that any Minister can agree to anything despite the scrutiny if he feels that there are special circumstances, and he must report those to the Committee. It is a load of codswallop. There is no democratic control on our laws because the courts, since interim relief, have the power to stop a United Kingdom law and say that it is dead. Even if 635 hon. Members voted against regulations, it would not influence the decision of the EEC one bit.
We do not need to look for more comforting scrutiny, which we all know is bogus and irrelevant. We need to tell the people of the United Kingdom what is going on. We should not give them propaganda but let them know the extent to which our democracy has faded away and, in my view, is disappearing. Hon. Members may think that that is dangerous because the public may wonder what is the point of voting in an election—whether it be for Conservatives, Labour or the Social and Liberal Democrats—when more and more decisions are being seized under article 100A of the EEC.
I am sure that the Leader of the House will say that I am unduly pessimistic and that Ministers take account of hon. Members' views. I am sure that they do, but he will be aware that in the EEC decisions are often made on a horse-trading basis. We say that we will support one country on a certain matter if we can have the support of others in other Committees. I am afraid—all hon. Members present are aware of this—that this is simply part of a long-term process of trying to deny information and deny people's right to know what is going on and to know how our sovereignty has disappeared shamefully.
Whether the Minister thinks that this is good or bad, whether one is pro-EEC or hates the EEC, whether one thinks great things are being achieved or rubbish is being achieved, our primary duty is to let the people of Britain know what on earth is going on. The only way to do that is not to pass on crucial changes affecting every person in Britain by referring them to pleasant sub-committees which will meet in the morning allowing the vast majority of hon. Members to relax. They will not have to wait up

until 11 o'clock at night to hear what is going on. They can simply say, "Someone else is doing it and, if they do not do their job, it is not my fault."
In those circumstances, the motion we are considering in one hour—not five hours or 20 hours—will achieve nothing except that the people of Britain will know a little less about a subject on which they are not being informed.

Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House wishes to reply soon, so I shall be brief. I take some comfort from the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) who expressed the importance of the Committees. However, I should like my right hon. and learned Friend to take on board one or two points.
I echo the great concern voiced by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) about the role of the Executive in this matter. I am also concerned that ordinary hon. Members will not be able to vote on the Standing Committees. It is fine that they should be able to listen and speak but they should be able to vote. If not, the value of the Committees will be downgraded and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) said, they will become irrelevant and people will not take them seriously. I urge my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House, even at this late stage, to take on board those points.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to hon. Members for having condensed their remarks effectively in the short time allowed to us.
I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) who would have liked us to have more time. I had not been planning to have so many statements this afternoon. The third statement was totally unexpected and we could not have done without it. I am grateful to hon. Members on both sides for the generosity of the tributes they have paid to me which are alarming in their scale. I am not sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) takes the same view, even on that humanitarian subject. However, as always, I listened with interest to what he said. I suspect that, to a large extent, it echoed his speech in the debate in June which lasted five hours. Therefore, it is wrong to say that these matters have not been considered at some length.

Mr. William Cash: May I ask about the word "legislation" in the Standing Order? Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure us that he will keep it under review? The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) was that we wanted to look at the Madrid matters in advance of the debate. Would it be possible to consider that?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot answer that question now. However, there has been an agreed widening of the scope of the work that can be done by the Scrutiny Committee. We shall have to see how far that works out in practice.
The average printing cost per question is £38 and the preparation cost is £53 for a written question and £87 for an oral question. Therefore, there will be a substantial


saving as a result of the recommendations which, I am glad to say, have commanded total support on both sides of the House.
We shall have to think about the best way of carrying out the review of the procedures once they have been in place for 12 months. It will be helpful to know that the Procedure Committee intends to have our performance under review during the 12 months ahead and I have no doubt that the Scrutiny Committee will continue to scrutinise it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) drew attention to an important point about the allocation of subjects. He is right to believe that the Treasury is included in the third group. It includes the Treasury—including Customs and Excise—the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Home Office and the Departments of Health, Social Security, Employment, Energy and Education and Science. It will be helpful to have that set out clearly. They are allocated on the basis that the work will be roughly evenly distributed. That is provisional and we shall have to see how it works out in practice.
The key issue in the debate turned on the question of automaticity under Standing Order No. 102 and there is a clear divergence of views about that. I do not accept the point advanced by some hon. Members that the remission of the questions for study by the new Standing Committees implies any devaluation of the view that the House takes about scrutiny. They are special bodies and they will have new and extended procedures. That should be recognised.
There is bound to be the question of whether it is right for this matter to be decided on the proposals before us or on the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). We shall have to see how we get on, and hon. Members will certainly bear that in mind. On that basis, I commend the motion and the subsequent motions to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 233, Noes 21.

Division No. 333]
[7.00 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Allen, Graham
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Arbuthnot, James
Buck, Sir Antony


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Budgen, Nicholas


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Burns, Simon


Ashby, David
Butcher, John


Atkins, Robert
Butler, Chris


Atkinson, David
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Carrington, Matthew


Baldry, Tony
Cash, William


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Barron, Kevin
Chapman, Sydney

 Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)


Bendall, Vivian
Colvin, Michael


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Conway, Derek


Bermingham, Gerald
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Cope, Rt Hon John


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Cormack, Patrick


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Cunningham, Dr John


Bottomley, Peter
Curry, David


Brazier, Julian
Dalyell, Tam


Bright, Graham
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Dixon, Don


Browne, John (Winchester)
Dorrell, Stephen





Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Leighton, Ron


Dunn, Bob
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Lightbown, David


Emery, Sir Peter
Lilley, Peter


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Evennett, David
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Fallon, Michael
Lord, Michael


Favell, Tony
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fearn, Ronald
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Maclean, David


Fishburn, John Dudley
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fisher, Mark
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Flannery, Martin
Madden, Max


Flynn, Paul.
Major, Rt Hon John


Fookes, Dame Janet
Malins, Humfrey


Forman, Nigel
Mans, Keith


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Maples, John


Forth, Eric
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Foster, Derek
Mates, Michael


Fox, Sir Marcus
Maude, Hon Francis


Freeman, Roger 
Meale, Alan


Gale, Roger  Miller, Sir Hal


Gardiner, George
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mitchell, Sir David


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Moss, Malcolm


Goodlad, Alastair
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mudd, David


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Needham, Richard


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Neubert, Michael


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Grist, Ian
Norris, Steve


Hague, William
O'Brien, William


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hanley, Jeremy
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hannam, John
Page, Richard


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Paice, James


Harris, David
Patnick, Irvine


Haselhurst, Alan
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hawkins, Christopher
Pawsey, James


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Portillo, Michael


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hill, James
Raffan, Keith


Hind, Kenneth
Redwood, John


Home Robertson, John
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hood, Jimmy
Rhodes James, Robert


Hordern, Sir Peter
Riddick, Graham


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Robertson, George


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Rooker, Jeff


Howells, Geraint
Rost, Peter


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Rowe, Andrew


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Rowlands, Ted


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Ryder, Richard


Hunter, Andrew
Sackville, Hon Tom


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Irvine, Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


Jack, Michael
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Jackson, Robert
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Janman, Tim
Sheerman, Barry


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Shelton, Sir William


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Shersby, Michael


Key, Robert
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Kilfedder, James
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Kirkhope, Timothy
Steen, Anthony


Knapman, Roger
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Summerson, Hugo


Knowles, Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Knox, David
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Lawrence, Ivan
Tracey, Richard


Lee, John (Pendle)
Trippier, David






Trotter, Neville
Wray, Jimmy


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Yeo, Tim


Wareing, Robert N.
Young, Sir George(Acton)


Wells, Bowen



Wheeler, Sir John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wilkinson, John
Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Tim Boswell.


Wood, Timothy



Woodcock, Dr. Mike





NOES


Beggs, Roy
Patchett, Terry


Clay, Bob
Primarolo, Dawn


Corbyn, Jeremy
Ross, William(Londonderry E)


Cryer, Bob
Salmond, Alex


Forsythe, Clifford(Antrim S)
Sillars, Jim


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Skinner, Dennis


Graham, Thomas
Welsh, Andrew(Angus E)


Grant, Bernie(Tottenham)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Hughes, John(Coventry NE)



Marshall, Jim(Leicester S)
Tellers for the Noes:


Michie, Bill(Sheffield Heeley)
Mr. George Buckley and Mr. Harry Barnes.


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James



Nellist, Dave

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House agrees with the recommendations contained in the First Report of the Select Committee on Procedure of this Session (House of Commons Paper No. 379).

It being after Seven o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Questions which he was directed to put at that hour by the Order [18 October].

QUESTIONS TO MEMBERS, ETC.

Motion made and Question put,

That with effect from the beginning of the next Session of Parliament Standing Order No. 17 (Questions to Members) and Standing Order No. 18 (Notices of motions, amendments and questions) be repealed and the following Standing Orders be made—

Time for taking questions

(1)—Questions shall be taken on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, after private business has been disposed of.

(2) No question shall be taken after half-past three o'clock, except questions which have not appeared on the paper but which are in Mr. Speaker's opinion of an urgent character and relate either to matters of public importance or to the arrangement of business.

(3) Any questions tabled for written answer on a day on which the House does not sit by reason of the continuance of a previous sitting shall be deemed to be questions for written answer on the next sitting day and shall appear on the Order Paper for that day.

Notices of questions, motions and amendments

(1)—Notices of questions shall be given by Members in writing to the Table Office.

(2) A notice of a question, or of an amendment to a motion standing on the Order Paper for which no day has been fixed or of the addition of a name in support of such a motion or amendment, which is given after half-past ten o'clock in the evening shall be treated for all purposes as if it were a notice handed in after the rising of the House.

(3) A Member shall indicate on the notice of any question whether it is for oral, written or priority written answer.

(4) Where a Member has indicated that a question is for priority written answer the Minister shall cause an answer to be given to the Member on the date for which notice has been given, provided that the requirement of notice shall be the same for such questions as that prescribed in this order for questions for oral answer.

(5) Notice of a question for oral answer may not be given on a day earlier than ten sitting days before the day for answer, provided that, where that earliest day would otherwise fall on a Friday, the earliest day on which such notice may be given will instead be the previous sitting day.

(6) Notice of any question for oral answer must appear at latest on the notice paper circulated two days (excluding Saturday and Sunday) before that on which an answer is desired.

(7) When it is proposed that the House shall adjourn for a period of less than four days, any day during that period (other than a Saturday or Sunday) shall be counted as a sitting day for the purpose of calculating the period in paragraph (5) of this order.

(8) When notice shall have been given of a Motion for the adjournment of the House for more than three days Mr. Speaker may cause to have printed and circulated with the Vote a memorandum superseding the provisions of paragraphs (5) and (6) of this order and instead setting out the earliest day on which notice of questions for oral answer may be given for each of the first ten sitting days after that adjournment, provided that each such day shall as far as practicable fall on the same day of the week as that on which the question is to be answered and shall not be fewer than fourteen days before the day for answer; and also setting out the latest day for notice of questions for oral answer on each of the first two sitting days following that adjournment provided that each such day shall not be fewer than two days (excluding Saturday and Sunday) before the day for answer.—[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]

The House divided: Ayes 218, Noes 2.

Division No. 334]
[7.13 p.m


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
 
Allen, Graham
Dover, Den


Arbuthnot, James
Dunn, Bob


Arnold, Jacques(Gravesham)
Emery, Sir Peter


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Fallon, Michael


Atkins, Robert
Favell, Tony


Atkinson, David
Fearn, Ronald


Baker, Rt Hon K.(Mole Valley)
Flannery, Martin


Baker, Nicholas(Dorset N)
Flynn, Paul


Baldry, Tony
Fookes, Dame Janet


Banks, Tony(Newham NW)
Forsyth, Michael(Stirling)


Barron, Kevin
Forsythe, Clifford(Antrim S)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Forth, Eric


Beggs, Roy
Fox, Sir Marcus


Bendall, Vivian
Freeman, Roger


Bennett, Nicholas(Pembroke)
Gale, Roger


Bermingham, Gerald
Gardiner, George


Bevan, David Gilroy
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Boswell, Tim
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Bottomley, Peter
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Goodlad, Alastair


Bright, Graham
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Greenway, Harry(Ealing N)


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Greenway, John(Ryedale)


Browne, John(Winchester)
Griffiths, Peter(Portsmouth N)


Bruce, Ian(Dorset South)
Griffiths, Win(Bridgend)


Budgen, Nicholas
Grist, Ian


Burns, Simon
Grylls, Michael


Butcher, John
Hague, William


Butler, Chris
Hanley, Jeremy


Carlisle, John,(Luton N)
Hannam, John


Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)
Hargreaves, A.(B'ham H'll Gr')


Carrington, Matthew
Harris, David


Cash, William
Hawkins, Christopher


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Chapman, Sydney
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clark, Hon Alan(Plym'th S'n)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen(Wolv' NE)


Colvin, Michael
Hicks, Robert(Cornwall SE)


Conway, Derek
Hill, James


Coombs, Simon(Swindon)
Hind, Kenneth


Cope, Rt Hon John
Home Robertson, John


Corbett, Robin
Hood, Jimmy


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hordern, Sir Peter


Cormack, Patrick
Howarth, Alan(Strat'd-on-A)


Cryer, Bob
Howarth, G.(Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Curry, David
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Dalyell, Tam
Howells, Geraint


Davis, David(Boothferry)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Dixon, Don
Hughes, John(Coventry NE)


Dorrell, Stephen
Hughes, Robert G.(Harrow W)






Hughes, Simon(Southwark)
Paice, James


Hunt, David(Wirral W)
Patchett, Terry


Hunter, Andrew
Patnick, Irvine


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Patten, Rt Hon John


Irvine, Michael
Pawsey, James


Jack, Michael
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Jackson, Robert
Portillo, Michael


Janman, Tim
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Ieuan(Ynys Môn)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Raffan, Keith


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Redwood, John


Key, Robert
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Kilfedder, James
Riddick, Graham


King, Roger(B'ham N'thfield)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Kirkhope, Timothy
Roberts, Sir Wyn(Conwy)


Knapman, Roger
Rooker, Jeff


Knight, Dame Jill(Edgbaston)
Rost, Peter


Knowles, Michael
Ryder, Richard


Knox, David
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Salmond, Alex


Lawrence, Ivan
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lee, John(Pendle)
Shaw, David(Dover)


Lightbown, David
Shaw, Sir Giles(Pudsey)


Lilley, Peter
Shaw, Sir Michael(Scarb')


Lloyd, Peter(Fareham)
Sheerman, Barry


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Shelton, Sir William


Lord, Michael
Shephard, Mrs G.(Norfolk SW)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)


McKay, Allen(Barnsley West)
Sillars, Jim


MacKay, Andrew(E Berkshire)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Maclean, David
Skinner, Dennis


McLoughlin, Patrick
Smith, Tim(Beaconsfield)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Spearing, Nigel


Madden, Max
Spicer, Sir Jim(Dorset W)


Major, Rt Hon John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Malins, Humfrey
Steen, Anthony


Mans, Keith
Stewart, Allan(Eastwood)


Maples, John
Stewart, Andy(Sherwood)


Marshall, Jim(Leicester S)
Summerson, Hugo


Martin, David(Portsmouth S)
Taylor, Ian(Esher)


Mates, Michael
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D.(S'ford)


Maude, Hon Francis
Taylor, John M(Solihull)


Meale, Alan
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Michael, Alun
Thompson, Patrick(Norwich N)

 Michie, Bill(Sheffield Heeley)
Tracey, Richard


Mitchell, Andrew(Gedling)
Trotter, Neville


Mitchell, Sir David
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Waller, Gary


Morrison, Rt Hon P(Chester)
Wells, Bowen


Moss, Malcolm
Welsh, Andrew(Angus E)


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Wheeler, Sir John


Needham, Richard
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Nellist, Dave
Wood, Timothy


Neubert, Michael
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Yeo, Tim


Nicholson, David(Taunton)
Young, Sir George(Acton)


Norris, Steve



O'Brien, William
Tellers for the Ayes:


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Mr. Greg Knight and Mr. Neil Hamilton.


Page, Richard





NOES


Davies, Ron(Caerphilly)
Tellers for the Noes:


Graham, Thomas
Mr. Harry Barnes and Mr. George Buckley.

Question accordingly agreed to.

EUROPEAN STANDING COMMITTEES

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That with effect from the beginning of the next Session of Parliament—

A. Standing Order No. 102 (Standing Committees on European Community Documents) be repealed, and the following Standing Order be made:

European Standing Committees

(1) There shall be three Standing Committees, called European Standing Committees, to which shall stand referred for consideration on Motion, unless the House otherwise

orders, such European Community Documents as defined in Standing Order No. 127 (Select Committee on European Legislation) as may be recommended by the Select Committee on European Legislation for further consideration.

(2) If a Motion that specified European Community Documents as aforesaid shall not stand referred to a European Standing Committee is made by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of public business, the Question thereon shall be put forthwith.

(3) Each European Standing Committee shall consist of ten Members nominated for the duration of a Session by the Committee of Selection; and in nominating such Members, the Committee of Selection shall—
(i) have regard to the qualifications of the Members nominated and to the composition of the House; and
(ii) have power to discharge Members from time to time, and to appoint others in substitution.

(4) The quorum of a European Standing Committee shall be two, excluding the Chairman.

(5) Any Member, though not nominated to a European Standing Committee, may take part in the Committee's proceedings, but such Member shall not make any Motion, vote or be counted in the quorum; provided that a Minister of the Crown who is a Member of this House but not nominated to the Committee may make a Motion as provided in paragraph (7) and (8) below; and the Government may appoint the precedence of Notices of Motion to be considered in each Committee.

(6) The several European Standing Committees, and the principal subject matter of the European Community Documents to be referred to each, shall be as set out below; and in making recommendations for further consideration, the Select Committee on European Legislation shall specify the Committee to which in its opinion the Documents ought to be referred; and subject to paragraph (2) of this Order, the Documents shall be referred to that Committee accordingly.

European Standing Committees
Principal subject matter



Matters within the responsibility of the following Departments—


A
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; Environment; and Forestry Commission (and analogous responsibilities of Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Offices)


B
Trade and Industry; Transport (and analogous responsibilities of Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Offices)


C
Other Departments.

(7) The Chairman may permit a Minister of the Crown to make a statement and to answer questions thereon put by Members, in respect of each Motion relative to a European Community Document or Documents referred to a European Standing Committee of which a Minister shall have given notice; but no question shall be taken after the expiry of a period of one hour from the commencement of the said statement.

(8) Following the conclusion of the proceedings under the previous paragraph, the Motion referred to therein may be made, to which Amendments may be moved; and, if proceedings thereon have not been previously concluded, the Chairman shall interrupt the consideration of such Motion and Amendments when the Committee shall have sat for a period of two and a half hours, and shall then put forwith successively:
(a) the Question on any Amendment already proposed from the Chair; and
(b) the main Question (or the main Question, as amended).

The Committee shall thereupon report to the House any Resolution to which it has come, without any further Question being put.

(9) If any Motion is made in the House in relation to any European Community Document in respect of which a Resolution has been reported to the House in accordance with paragraph (8) of this Order, Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put successively—


(a) the Question on any Amendment selected by him which may be moved;
(b) the main Question (or the main Question, as amended);

and proceedings in pursuance of this paragraph, though opposed, may be decided after the expiration of the time for opposed business.

(10) With modifications provided in this Order, the following Standing Orders shall apply to European Standing Committees:
No. 85 (Chairmen of standing committees);
No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees);
No. 89 (Procedure in standing committees); and

B. the following consequential Amendments to Standing Orders be made:

in Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),

line 15, after 'documents' insert '(other than in pursuance of paragraph (9) of Standing Order No. 102 (European Standing Committees))'.

line 37, leave out from 'Orders' to end of line 46 and insert 'No. 89 (Procedure in standing committees) and No. 102 (European Standing Committees) "European Community Documents" shall be as defined in Standing Order No. 127 (Select Committee on European Legislation)'.

in Standing Order No. 84 (Constitution of standing committees),

leave out from the beginning of line 8 to `measures'in line 9;

in Standing Order No. 86 (Nomination of standing committees),

line 3, leave out 'and';

line 5, at end, insert 'and

(d) a European Standing Committee';

line 10, leave out from 'instruments' to 'or' in line 12;

in Standing Order No. 87, line 6, after 'amendment' insert 'other than a motion or an amendment in a European Standing Committee under Standing Order No. 102 (European Standing Committees)';

in Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing

committees), line 2, after 'been' insert 'or stands'

in Standing Order No. 89 (Procedure in standing committees), line 2, after 'Committee,' insert 'and Standing Order No. 102 (European Standing Committees)';

leave out from beginning of line 11 to 'shall' in line 13, and insert, 'of a motion relative to a European Community Document or Documents or an amendment thereto given under Standing Order No. 102 (European Standing Committees).

line 25, at end insert 'or (in the case of European Standing Committees) by paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 102 (European Standing Committees)'.—[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]

Amendment proposed to the Question: Leave out
paragraphs (1) and (2) and insert—

'(1) There shall be three standing committees, called European Standing Committees, for the consideration of European Community documents (as defined in Standing Order No. 127 (Select Committee on European Legislation)), referred to them.

(2) Where notice has been given of a motion relating to a European Community document, a motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of public business, that the said document be referred to such a committee, and the Question thereupon shall be put forthwith; and if, on the Question thereupon shall be put forthwith; and if, on the Question being put, not fewer than forty Members rise in their places and signify their objection thereto, Mr. Speaker shall declare that the noes have it.'.—[Mr. Spearing.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 49, Noes 138.

Division No. 335]
[7.24 pm


AYES


Allen, Graham
Barnes, Harry(Derbyshire NE)


Banks, Tony(Newham NW)
Barron, Kevin





Buckley, George J.
Nellist, Dave


Budgen, Nicholas
Neubert, Michael


Cash, William
O'Brien, William


Clay, Bob
O'Neill, Martin


Coombs, Anthony(Wyre F'rest)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Dalyell, Tam
Patchett, Terry


Dixon, Don
Pike, Peter L.


Flynn, Paul
Primarolo, Dawn


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Raffan, Keith


Golding, Mrs Llin
Salmond, Alex


Graham, Thomas
Sillars, Jim


Hargreaves, A.(B'ham H'll Gr')
Skinner, Dennis


Home Robertson, John
Spearing, Nigel


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Taylor, Teddy(S'end E)


Hughes, John(Coventry NE)
Thompson, Patrick(Norwich N)


Hughes, Simon(Southwark)
Wells, Bowen


Illsley, Eric
Welsh, Andrew(Angus E)


Irvine, Michael
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Knapman, Roger
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Knowles, Michael
Wray, Jimmy


Leighton, Ron



Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Tellers for the Ayes:


McKay, Allen(Barnsley West)
Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Jimmy Hood.


Marshall, Jim(Leicester S)



Michie, Bill(Sheffield Heeley)





NOES


Arbuthnot, James
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Atkins, Robert
Grist, Ian


Atkinson, David
Hague, William


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Hanley, Jeremy


Baldry, Tony
Hannam, John


Beggs, Roy
Harris, David


Bendall, Vivian
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hind, Kenneth


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hordern, Sir Peter


Bottomley, Peter
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Bowis, John
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Bright, Graham
Howells, Geraint


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Jack, Michael


Burns, Simon
Jackson, Robert


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Janman, Tim


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Carrington, Matthew
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Key, Robert


Chapman, Sydney
Kilfedder, James


Chope, Christopher
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Colvin, Michael
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Conway, Derek
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Cope, Rt Hon John
Lawrence, Ivan


Cormack, Patrick 
Lee, John (Pendle)


Curry, David
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Lightbown, David


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lilley, Peter


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Dover, Den
Lord, Michael


Dunn, Bob
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Emery, Sir Peter
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Fallon, Michael
Maclean, David


Favell, Tony
McLoughlin, Patrick


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Mans, Keith 


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Maples, John


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Forth, Eric
Mates, Michael


Fox, Sir Marcus
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Freeman, Roger
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Gale, Roger
Moss, Malcolm


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Needham, Richard


Goodlad, Alastair
Page, Richard


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Paice, James






Patten, Rt Hon John
Steen, Anthony


Pawsey, James
Stewart, Allan(Eastwood)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Stewart, Andy(Sherwood)


Portillo, Michael
Summerson, Hugo


Redwood, John
Taylor, Ian(Esher)


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D.(S'ford)


Riddick, Graham
Taylor, John M(Solihull)


Roberts, Sir Wyn(Conwy)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Rost, Peter
Tracey, Richard


Sackville, Hon Tom
Trotter, Neville


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Wheeler, Sir John


Shaw, Sir Giles(Pudsey)
Wilkinson, John


Shaw, Sir Michael(Scarb')
Wood, Timothy


Shelton, Sir William
Young, Sir George(Acton)


Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)



Smith, Tim(Beaconsfield)
Tellers for the Noes:


Spicer, Sir Jim(Dorset W)
Mr. Irvine Patrick and Mr. Tim Boswell.


Stanbrook, Ivor

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Amendment made to the Question: No. 4, as a further consequential Amendment to Standing Order No. 84 (Constitution of standing committees), line 1 at the beginning insert:

'Subject to the provisions of paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 102 (European Standing Committees)'.—[Mr. Spearing.]

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put,

That with effect from the beginning of the next Session of Parliament Standing Order No. 127 (Select Committee on European Legislation) be amended by leaving out paragraph (1) and inserting:

(1) There shall be a select committee, to be called the Select Committee on European Legislation, to examine European Community Documents and—
(a) to report its opinion on the legal and political importance of each such document and, where it considers appropriate, to report also on the reasons for its opinion and on any matters of principle, policy or law which may be affected;
(b) to make recommendations for the further consideration of any such document pursuant to Standing Order No. 102 (European Standing Committees); and
(c) to consider any issue arising upon any such document or group of documents.

The expression 'European Community Documents' means—
(i) any proposal under the Community Treaties for legislation by the Council of Ministers;
(ii) any document which is published for submission to the European Council or the Council of Ministers;
(iii) any document (not falling within (ii) above) which is published by one Community institution for or with a view to submission to another Community institution and which does not relate exclusively to consideration of any proposal for legislation;
(iv) any other document relating to European Community matters deposited in the House by a Minister of the Crown.—[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]

The House divided: Ayes 170, Noes 2.

Division No. 336]
[7.35 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Banks, Tony(Newham NW)


Allen, Graham
Barnes, Harry(Derbyshire NE)


Arbuthnot, James
Barron, Kevin


Arnold, Jacques(Gravesham)
Beggs, Roy


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Bendall, Vivian


Atkins, Robert
Bennett, Nicholas(Pembroke)


Atkinson, David
Benyon, W.


Baker, Rt Hon K.(Mole Valley)
Boscawen, Hon Robert





Boswell, Tim
Key, Robert


Bottomley, Peter
Kilfedder, James


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
King, Roger(B'ham N'thfield)


Bowis, John
Kirkhope, Timothy


Brazier, Julian
Knapman, Roger


Bright, Graham
Knight, Greg(Derby North)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Knowles, Michael


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Lawrence, Ivan


Browne, John(Winchester)
Lester, Jim(Broxtowe)


Buckley, George J.
Lightbown, David


Budgen, Nicholas Lilley, Peter


Burns, Simon
Livsey, Richard


Butler, Chris
Lloyd, Peter(Fareham)


Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
 
Carrington, Matthew
Lord, Michael


Cash, William
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
McKay, Allen(Barnsley West)


Chapman, Sydney
MacKay, Andrew(E Berkshire)


Chope, Christopher
Maclean, David


Churchill, Mr
McLoughlin, Patrick


Clark, Hon Alan(Plym'th S'n)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Conway, Derek
Mans, Keith


Coombs, Anthony(Wyre F'rest)
Maples, John


Coombs, Simon(Swindon)
Martin, David(Portsmouth S)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Mellor, David


Cormack, Patrick
Michie, Bill(Sheffield Heeley)


Couchman, James
Mitchell, Andrew(Gedling)

 Curry, David
Morrison, Rt Hon P(Chester)


Dalyell, Tam
Moss, Malcolm


Davies, Q.(Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Dixon, Don Needham, Richard


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Neubert, Michael


Dover, Den
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Emery, Sir Peter
Nicholson, David(Taunton)


Fallon, Michael
Norris, Steve


Flynn, Paul
O'Brien, William


Forsythe, Clifford(Antrim S)
Page, Richard


Forth, Eric
Paice, James


Freeman, Roger
Patnick, Irvine


Gale, Roger
Patten, Rt Hon John


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Portillo, Michael


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Primarolo, Dawn


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Raffan, Keith


Golding, Mrs Llin
Redwood, John


Goodlad, Alastair
Riddick, Graham


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Roberts, Sir Wyn(Conwy)


Graham, Thomas
Ryder, Richard


Greenway, Harry(Ealing N)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Greenway, John(Ryedale)
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Griffiths, Peter(Portsmouth N)
Salmond, Alex


Grist, Ian
Shaw, Sir Giles(Pudsey)


Hague, William
Shaw, Sir Michael(Scarb')


Hamilton, Neil(Tatton)
Shelton, Sir William


Hanley, Jeremy
Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)


Hargreaves, A.(B'ham H'll Gr')
Sillars, Jim


Harris, David
Smith, Tim(Beaconsfield)


Hawkins, Christopher
Spearing, Nigel


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Spicer, Sir Jim(Dorset W)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Steen, Anthony


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Stewart, Andy(Sherwood)


Hind, Kenneth
Summerson, Hugo


Home Robertson, John
Taylor, Ian(Esher)


Hood, Jimmy
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D.(S'ford)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Taylor, John M(Solihull)


Howarth, Alan(Strat'd-on-A)
Taylor, Matthew(Truro)


Howarth, G.(Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Thompson, D.(Calder Valley)


Howells, Geraint
Thompson, Patrick(Norwich N)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Tracey, Richard


Hughes, John(Coventry NE)
Wells, Bowen


Hughes, Robert G.(Harrow W)
Welsh, Andrew(Angus E)


Hughes, Simon(Southwark)
Wheeler, Sir John


Hunt, David(Wirral W)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Illsley, Eric
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Irvine, Michael
Young, Sir George(Acton)


Jack, Michael



Jackson, Robert
Tellers for the Ayes:


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Mr. Nicholas Baker and Mr. Timothy Wood.


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine







NOES


Patchett, Terry
Tellers for the Noes:


Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Peter L. Pike.

Question accordingly agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put,

That in the opinion of this House:—

(1) No Minister of the Crown should give agreement in the Council of Ministers to any proposal for European Community legislation—
(a) which is still subject to scrutiny (that is, on which the Select Committee on European Legislation has not completed its scrutiny) or
(b) which is awaiting consideration by the House (that is, which has been recommended by the Select Committee for consideration pursuant to Standing Order No. 102 (European Standing Committees) but in respect of which the House has not come to a Resolution, either on a Resolution reported by a European Standing Committee or otherwise);

(2) In this Resolution, any reference to agreement to a proposal includes, in the case of a proposal on which the Council acts in co-operation with the European Parliament, agreement to a common position.

(3) The Minister concerned may, however, give agreement:—
(a) to a proposal which is still subject to scrutiny if he considers that it is confidential, routine or trivial or is substantially the same as a proposal on which scrutiny has been completed;
(b) to a proposal which is awaiting consideration by the House if the Select Committee has indicated that agreement need not be withheld pending consideration.

(4) The Minister concerned may also give agreement to a proposal which is still subject to scrutiny or awaiting consideration by the House if he decides that for special reasons agreement should be given; but he should explain his reasons—
(i) in every such case, to the Select Committee at the first opportunity after reaching his decision; and
(ii) in the case of a proposal awaiting consideration by the House, to the House at the first opportunity after giving agreement.

(5) In relation to any proposal which requires adoption by unanimity, abstention shall, for the purposes of paragraph (4), be treated as giving agreement.—[Mr. Chapman.]

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Roger Knapman: ( seated and covered): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to draw your attention to motion No. 5, paragraph (5) of which states:
abstention shall, for the purposes of paragraph (4), be treated as giving agreement.
Is there any precedent in the history of British Parliaments for abstention being treated as agreement?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I should not go so far as to say that there was a precedent, but I can inform the hon. Gentleman that it is certainly not a matter for the Chair.

The House having divided: Ayes 165, Noes 8.

Division No. 337]
[7.46pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Baker, Nicholas(Dorset N)


Allen, Graham
Banks, Tony(Newham NW)


Arbuthnot, James
Barnes, Harry(Derbyshire NE)


Arnold, Jacques(Gravesham)
Barron, Kevin


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Beggs, Roy


Atkins, Robert
Bendall, Vivian


Atkinson, David
Bennett, Nicholas(Pembroke)


Baker, Rt Hon K.(Mole Valley)
Benyon, W.





Boscawen, Hon Robert
Lawrence, Ivan


Boswell, Tim
Leighton, Ron


Bottomley, Peter
Lester, Jim(Broxtowe)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Lightbown, David


Bowis, John
Lilley, Peter


Brazier, Julian
Livsey, Richard


Bright, Graham
Lloyd, Peter(Fareham)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Browne, John(Winchester)
Lord, Michael


Buckley, George J.
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Budgen, Nicholas
McKay, Allen(Barnsley West)


Burns, Simon
MacKay, Andrew(E Berkshire)


Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)
Maclean, David


Carrington, Matthew
McLoughlin, Patrick


Cash, William
Mans, Keith


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Maples, John


Chapman, Sydney
Martin, David(Portsmouth S)


Churchill, Mr
Mellor, David


Clark, Hon Alan(Plym'th S'n)
Michael, Alun


Colvin, Michael
Mitchell, Andrew(Gedling)


Conway, Derek
Morrison, Rt Hon P(Chester)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Moss, Malcolm


Cormack, Patrick
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Curry, David
Neale, Gerrard


Dalyell, Tam
Needham, Richard


Davies, Q.(Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Neubert, Michael


Davis, David(Boothferry)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Dixon, Don
Nicholson, David(Taunton)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Norris, Steve


Dover, Den
O'Brien, William


Emery, Sir Peter
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Fallon, Michael
Page, Richard


Fishburn, John Dudley
Paice, James


Flynn, Paul
Patchett, Terry


Forsythe, Clifford(Antrim S)
Patnick, Irvine


Freeman, Roger
Patten, Rt Hon John


Gale, Roger
Pike, Peter L.


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Primarolo, Dawn


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Raffan, Keith


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Redwood, John


Golding, Mrs Llin
Roberts, Sir Wyn(Conwy)


Goodlad, Alastair
Sackville, Hon Tom


Graham, Thomas
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Greenway, Harry(Ealing N)
Salmond, Alex


Greenway, John(Ryedale)
Shaw, Sir Giles(Pudsey)


Griffiths, Peter(Portsmouth N)
Shaw, Sir Michael(Scarb')


Grist, Ian
Shelton, Sir William


Hague, William
Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)


Hanley, Jeremy
Sillars, Jim


Hargreaves, A.(B'ham H'll Gr')
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Harris, David
Smith, Tim(Beaconsfield)


Hawkins, Christopher
Spearing, Nigel


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Steen, Anthony


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Stevens, Lewis


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Stewart, Andy(Sherwood)


Hind, Kenneth
Summerson, Hugo


Home Robertson, John
Taylor, Ian(Esher)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D.(S'ford)


Howarth, Alan(Strat'd-on-A)
Taylor, John M(Solihull)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Howell, Rt Hon David(G'dford)
Thompson, D.(Calder Valley)


Howells, Geraint
Thompson, Patrick(Norwich N)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Thurnham, Peter


Hughes, Robert G.(Harrow W)
Tracey, Richard


Hughes, Simon(Southwark)
Wells, Bowen


Hunt, David(Wirral W)
Welsh, Andrew(Angus E)


Irvine, Michael
Wheeler, Sir John


Irving, Sir Charles
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Jack, Michael
Wood, Timothy


Jackson, Robert
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Yeo, Tim


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Young, Sir George(Acton)


Key, Robert



Kilfedder, James
Tellers for the Ayes:


King, Roger(B'ham N'thfield)
Mr. Neil Hamilton and Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.


Knight, Greg(Derby North)



Knowles, Michael







NOES


Clay, Bob
Skinner, Dennis


Corbyn, Jeremy
Taylor, Teddy(S'end E)


Cousins, Jim



Cryer, Bob
Tellers for the Noes:


Knapman, Roger
Mr. Eric Illsley and Mr. Bill Michie.


Nellist, Dave

Question accordingly agreed to.

Redbridge London Borough Council Bill [By Order]

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on the Question [15 October], That the Lords amendment be now considered

Clause 6

As TO TRANSFER OF RIGHTS

Which amendment was: in page 4, lines 9 to 17, leave out clause 6.

Question again proposed, That the Lords amendment be now considered.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You may recall that the Bill has been the subject of some controversy and, indeed, difficulty. When it was last considered an amendment was moved. The House considered an amendment which did not refer to anything. As a consequence of the belated discovery of that fact during the debate, the proposer withdrew the amendment because clearly the House could not debate something which was not there. Could you agree to allow us to start from the beginning? We had two and a quarter hours of debate in a vacuum as it were. It seems to me that it would be better to agree for the purposes of time that the debate was about to begin now because on the last occasion it was about, literally, nothing.

Madam Deputy Speaker: In the first instance, the motion to which the right hon. Gentleman—I should say hon. Gentleman; I am giving him titles that he does not have—referred was not withdrawn. The debate was adjourned. The hon. Gentleman knows that the powers of the Chair do not include a power to make that debate null and void. No occupant of the Chair has that power. Therefore, this is a resumed debate, with which we must now continue. If I remember correctly—I remember the debate well—Mr. Harry Barnes had the Floor.

Mr. Michael Neubert: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I remain somewhat perplexed about the position of the printed Bill that we are about to discuss. You will recall that the original Bill that was deposited was dated 16 November 1988. The later Bill, which I have in print, was dated 23 November 1989. The two Bills now available in the Vote Office are dated, respectively, 28 February 1990 and 25 May 1990. Should we come to debate clause 6 and the amendment to it, it is not clear to me which of the two Bills we are discussing. That clause is in the Bill dated 28 February 1990, but it does not appear in the one dated 25 May 1990.
I would consider it odd if it was within our procedures to discuss an outdated edition of a printed Bill, but even if that was so, is it not a contempt of the House that the Bill should have been printed in anticipation of the deletion of clause 6 even before the House had considered that matter?

Madam Deputy Speaker: One Bill is the Commons' Bill and one Bill is the Lords'. The Bill before me is the correct one. The Vote Office, being efficient as ever, has both the Bills and all that hon. Gentlemen have to do is ask for the correct one.
I would be generous enough to offer my copy to the hon. Member for Romford (M r. Neubert), but, as we are debating it, I think that I should have it by the Chair.

Mr. William O'Brien: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In addition to the two Bills to which reference has been made we have received a statement on behalf of the promoters in support of the consideration of the Lords amendment. Paragraph 3 of that statement says:
Clause 6 of the Bill dealt with the power to transfer market rights conferred by the Bill. In view of the decision to make the amendment referred to above, clause 6 became otiose and was struck out at Committee Stage in the House of Lords.
I challenge that argument. When I made inquiries as to when the amendment was made, I was informed that when the Bill left the Opposed Private Bill Committee in the House of Lords it was in the same condition as it was when it left the House of Commons. We are now told that that Committee made the amendment. The report of that Committee should be made available, but, having asked for it, I have been told that it is unavailable.
If we are told that an amendment was made, we are entitled to see the business before the Committee when that amendment was made. I seek your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, about how to obtain the report of those Committee proceedings so that we know exactly why the amendment was made. I have been unable to obtain that information and, therefore, I request that this business be adjourned until we receive it. Yet again we are approaching a debate without the evidence needed to consider the amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I cannot go behind decisions that were taken in the Lords. The question before us is perfectly in order, as is all the documentation. Points of order are taking time out of a resumed debate. We have already spent more than two hours on the procedural motion. The matters that hon. Gentlemen are seeking to raise now could be raised in the general debate when I should be happy to listen to them. I call Mr. Barnes.

Mr. Harry Barnes: I am afraid that I must start by raising a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
We adjourned the debate on 15 October until today to get ourselves out of a great difficulty—we were debating something that did not exist. Many clever speeches were made, and I take my hat off to those hon. Members who were able to talk for two and a quarter hours about material which did not exist but which was loosely linked to the Bill. The amendment that had been moved, however, related to nothing.
I believe that we should start again from scratch and that the promoters should move that the amendment be considered. We should then be able to debate the items correctly. I put my case in a letter to Mr. Speaker and no doubt it was considered before this debate.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I know that the hon. Gentleman approached Mr. Speaker about this matter, but the Chair has no authority to make null and void and erase a debate which was proper and had taken place. We must now continue that resumed debate. The Bills and all the papers are available to the House this time.

Mr. Barnes: In that case I now need to argue why we should vote against the amendment being considered.
The main reason not to consider the amendment is to give Redbridge council time to put its house in order, especially as the Bill is a procedural mess. That would give the council an opportunity to consider the role of the parliamentary agents, Sharpe Pritchard.
In the previous debate on this matter the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) said:
Redbridge's parliamentary agents are Sharpe Pritchard who are well known to hon. Members."—[Official Report, 15 October 1990; Vol. 177, c. 994.]

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that you have heard several points of order already, but I have another point of order that is extremely important to the Chair and to the House.
When we previously debated the Bill a number of Conservative Members who are deeply involved in this matter spoke and, therefore, under the normal rules of procedure, they would be disallowed from speaking today. However, they were speaking about a clause that was not in the Bill. In effect, now that we know about clause 6, they have not taken part in the proceedings.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Good one.

Mr. Skinner: For the purposes of proper procedure, and as those hon. Members have a vested interest in this matter, those who spoke about a clause which was not in the Bill should now have the right to speak to clause 6. If not, those hon. Members and, in particular, their constituents, will be disfranchised in this debate.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made an extremely good point. It is most ingenious, but, unfortunately, at this stage I cannot change our practice to change the rules of debate. Hon. Members who have spoken before may intervene, but I cannot change the practice now to allow them to speak. I must say, however, that the hon. Gentleman raised a most ingenious point of order—one of the best I have heard in my time in the Chair.

Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We know that there is a procedure in the House whereby an hon. Member can ask the permission of the House to speak again in a debate. Sometimes Ministers exercise that right when they are introducing new Bills. In those circumstances, if Conservative Members who took part in the previous debate on the non-clause asked permission to speak again, would that be allowed? I know that someone might object, but that is another story.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I cannot anticipate that but, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, it is for the House to determine the answer.

Mr. Cryer: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has great validity and I endorse its sentiments. In view of that, would you accept a manuscript amendment to the Standing Orders—a procedure that is widely followed in the House?

Madam Deputy Speaker: That was a very good try on the hon. Gentleman's part, but I am not going to wear it this time.

Mr. Neubert: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. If it is not open to you under the


Standing Orders to make such special arrangements in the special circumstances of the business being adjourned on Monday 15 October, would you be prepared, if asked to judge the adequacy of the time given to the debate, to make allowances for the fact that a good deal of our time during the previous debate was spent debating a matter that was out of order? We were asked to discuss a clause that did not appear in the Bill and much of the debate was taken up with points of order about just that.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I see that this evening our time is also being taken up with points of order. The hon. Gentleman must now leave the matter to the discretion of the Chair.

Mr. Allen McKay: On the ruling that you have just made, Madam Deputy Speaker, you said that if we ask for the permission of the House to speak again, it will be up to the House to decide yea or nay. I take it that if there were to be a division of opinion, there would also be a Division of the House on whether that Member could speak.

Madam Deputy Speaker: No, no—one voice only is our normal practice. It is the practice of the House that if one voice is raised in opposition, so be it. It is not up to the Chair.

Mr. Barnes: I thought that the point of order from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) about the disfranchisement of the hon. Members who spoke in the previous debate was important. That was why I included it in my letter to Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover said it with much more style and panache than could be contained in my letter.
The point that I was making was that we should vote against the amendment because Redbridge council is in something of a mess over the measure. I was quoting from the hon. Member for Romford, who said:
Redbridge's parliamentary agents are Sharpe Pritchard who are well known to hon. Members. Their no doubt expensive services enjoy a high reputation in the House.
However, they may not enjoy such a high reputation following the procedures in which we have been involved. A great mistake had been made when the debate had to be adjourned on 15 October.

Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend agree that the debate was not adjourned in the sense of an ordinary conclusion, but came to an end in unusual circumstances because the Bill was withdrawn? The debate had to come to an end because the sponsor had to withdraw the Bill and left the House with nothing to debate. That emphasises the importance of the procedural points that we are making.

Mr. Barnes: The measure was, in practice and de facto, withdrawn, but unfortunately the sponsor moved an adjournment, so formerly we were in that position. I wrote to Mr. Speaker in an attempt to claim that, despite how the words appeared on paper at the end of the debate, the reality was that the officials and, to a large extent, the Chair were in a considerable mess about what was taking place. I was asked by Mr. Deputy Speaker who was in the Chair to allow the sponsor to get us out of that mess, which he did by moping the adjournment. Now, we have been hoist by the petard of the adjournment having been moved. But in reality it was a convenient means of killing

off the debate. That is why I felt that we should start the whole thing again and enfranchise the hon. Members who had previously spoken, but Madam Deputy Speaker's ruling was different, so I must pursue the debate.
I was quoting from the hon. Member for Romford in the debate of 15 October, when he talked about the expensive services of Sharpe Pritchard and said that the firm would be well known to hon. Members. He continued:
Proceedings on the Bill have been under way for nearly two years if one dates them from the printing of the Bill on 16 November 1988. Redbridge residents must have been paying a packet all this time."—[Official Report, 15 October 1990; Vol. 177, c. 994.]
They certainly have been paying a packet and, presumably, have had to pay an extra packet in having the Bill reprinted to make it available for us today. They also have the problem of all the mess that was created on 15 October when the parliamentary agents were present.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have just been up to the Private Bill Office and seen the only copy of the report of the Lords Committee stage. While I clearly did not have time to go through all five days' proceedings, it is, I am informed, practice for House of Lords Committees to announce their findings at the end of the Committee stage. At the end of the Committee stage of this Bill all that is on record is that the Bill should proceed. There is no mention of clause 6 being taken out. It seems that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, may have been misinformed. Clearly, the House cannot debate a House of Lords amendment that has not been made.

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is something which the Chair cannot go into now. The matter before the House—the procedural motion that we are debating—is perfectly in order.

Mr. Skinner: My point of order is different, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The Redbridge London Borough Council Bill was first introduced by the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne); when we debated it last week the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) spoke on behalf of the promoters. The hon. Member for Ilford, South introduced the Bill, and the hon. Member for Ilford, North was allowed by the Chair to stop the proceedings. If someone who is not promoting the Bill in the House—such as the hon. Member for Ilford, North, who was not at the beginning—is allowed to stop it, it should be right and proper for any other Member, whether Opposition or Conservative, to be able to say, "Let us adjourn again." If the hon. Member for Ilford, North can do that, as he did on the last occasion, why cannot we do it now and get on to something else?

Madam Deputy Speaker: It would be in order for the Chair to decide whether that motion was acceptable.

Mr. Skinner: I shall move it then.

Madam Deputy Speaker: It would not be acceptable.

Mr. Eric Insley: Further to the matter that has been under discussion, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The second and third paragraphs of the statement put out on behalf of the Bill's promoters refer to a decision made in another place to make an amendment that led to clause 6 becoming otiose and being struck out at Committee stage in the House of Lords. If clause 6 became otiose, an amendment could not appear to leave out clause 6 in the Bill. How can we have a statement saying that the clause is no longer relevant, is otiose and should be struck out, and yet we are discussing an amendment to leave out clause 6? Surely, logically, the decision to leave out clause 6 has been arrived at in another place and we are simply being asked to justify or rubber-stamp a mistake made in another place because the amendment was not properly constructed. The statement contradicts the Bill.

Madam Deputy Speaker: We are not talking about that. The House has been asked to determine for itself whether, when we reach the amendment, we should decide to omit it from the Bill.

Mr. Illsley: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I do not know whether there can be a further point of order, but the hon. Gentleman appears to want to delay the debate.

Mr. Illsley: How can we determine what was in the minds of their Lordships in leaving out clause 6? We are being asked to determine whether clause 6 should stand on its own in our opinion, but we cannot see the reasoning behind the decision by their Lordships, the promoters or whoever to leave out clause 6.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The House determines for itself whether amendments should be made and clauses left out or withdrawn. Those are matters that the House determines during the course of debate.

Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
You were not in the Chair when we discussed the matter last week, but we found that, although there are 1,100 people qualified to sit in the House of Lords, not one of them spoke on the issue. Therefore, not only is the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) right about the matter, but it went through the House of Lords like a dose of Epsom salts. It was not moved by the person who first moved it in this House because the sponsor—the man who is commonly known on these Benches as the man with the monocle, Erich von Stroheim II—was not here to do it. It really is a cock-up of tremendous magnitude.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is not raising a point of order; he is raising perfectly legitimate points of debate and, perhaps, substance. If we can proceed with the debate, I shall be delighted to call him.

Mr. Barnes: On 15 October my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover said that our debate was like something out of Monty Python. Further proof of that is the fact that I might end up making the longest speech that I have ever made while saying nothing because there have been so many interventions and points of order.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend will know that when a Bill comes from the other place it is handed by a gentleman in a wig to the Serjeant at Arms who then holds it—balances it—and gives it to an usher who carries it round the No Lobby in order to give it to somebody who then gives it to

one of the Clerks. In all that handling, some sheet of paper with clause 6 on it may have dropped out. Has my hon. Friend investigated that possibility to see whether the missing clause is on a piece of paper in an odd corner somewhere?

Mr. Barnes: I am afraid that I understand nothing about procedural mysteries and details. I am just the hon. Member who walked in here like a little boy lost, picked up the Bill and saw that the emperor had no clothes and that we were discussing nothing. When I said that, the debate was stopped. If I had made some investigations I might have been able to discover some other great procedural anomalies between here and the other place, but I am afraid that I have not.

Mr. O'Brien: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I feel strongly about this. The report of the Third Reading debate in the other place on 14 June says:
Redbridge London Borough Council Bill. Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with an amendment."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 June 1990; Vol. 520, c. 414.]
But nowhere is there any record of an amendment. it is only referred to. So how can this House consider an amendment from the other place that has not been made? Nowhere is there a record of an amendment being made by the other place to the Bill to the effect that clause 6 should be erased. How can this House consider an amendment that has not been made? May we have some guidance, because the procedure that we are following tonight seems very strange?

Madam Deputy Speaker: The Chair is not responsible for the deliberations of the other place. The amendment that I have before me tonight has come from the other place, and therefore our proceedings tonight are in order.

Mr. O'Brien: Further to my point of order, Maclam Deputy Speaker. Who made the amendment in the other place? No Member of the other place is recorded as making such an amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: As I say, the Chair is not responsible for deliberations in the other place. There is no judgment that the Chair can pass on that. The amendment has come from the other place and I am assured by the authorities of the House that it is perfectly in order.

Mr. Neubert: Further to that point of order, Maclam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) said that the Bill was given its Third Reading in the other place on 14 June. You will recall that I drew to your attention a copy of the Bill printed in May this year without that clause. On first glance, that would seem to imply that the amendment was proposed and enacted in Committee in the other place. Yet my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) assures us that, according to the record, that is not so. I think that we are owed an explanation.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I cannot assure my hon. Friend or the House that there was no such amendment in Committee in the other place because I did not have a chance to read all five volumes of the Committee's proceedings. But I am assured by the Private Bill Office that the usual procedure in the other place is to make recommendations on a Bill at the end, and I assure the House that at the end no such amendment was recorded.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman and the House can be assured that the Private Bill Office is correct in presenting the Lords amendment. It is in order.

Mr. Nellist: On a different point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will be aware, as most hon. Members are, that the other place has a strange, but presumably on many occasions useful, procedure by which the House adjourns during pleasure. It is a quaint and rather nice phrase. Will you, Madam Deputy Speaker, accept a motion from the Floor that our proceedings be adjourned for a similar period, which I understand is about an hour, so that the Clerks of this House can contact the Clerks of the other place to discover whether the points made by Conservative Members are correct? If they are, it would save a lot of embarrassment all round if the matter were put right before something wrong was done tonight.

Madam Deputy Speaker: No. Hon. Members are making a good try in raising points of order, but our proceedings are in order, as is the documentation before us, or it would not be here.

Mr. Kevin Barron: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think that it would be right to say that the Chair at all times protects Members of the House and the records of the House. As I understand it, after the Committee proceedings in the other place a private Bill is then placed on the Table of what is called the Lord Chancellor's counsel, which may or may not be comprised of Members of the other place but who are lawyers. They then amend the private Bill without any record of the proceedings being made available to hon. Members which would enable them to discover why such amendments were made. That is what happened in the case of the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill. Amendments to that were made by the Lord Chancellor's counsel and there were no records of that. Are there any records of such procedures in the other place at which we could look so that we could discover why the clause was removed from the Bill?

Madam Deputy Speaker: The Chair has many responsibilities and much authority, but it does not extend to the other place.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is a serious matter. According to the Order Paper we are considering that the Lords amendment to the Redbridge London Borough Council Bill be now considered. We have had two documents from the Vote Office, one of which says that in the parliamentary Session 1989–90 the Lords amendment is, in effect, to leave out clause 6. It is stapled to another document which had been issued by Sharpe Pritchard, parliamentary agents.
There must be some limit to the extent to which an outside body can insert an amendment which is to be considered by Parliament without any authority other than their claim that it is a Lords amendment. There is none of the other documentation that is usually available to the House of Commons to verify that it is a Lords amendment. We have only the word of the parliamentary agents. Frankly, that is not something which, in my experience and I am sure in yours, Madam Deputy Speaker, the House has ever taken as proof that the amendment was considered by the other place.

Madam Deputy Speaker: This is a procedure that has been going on for many years——

Mr. Cryer: It is wrong.

Madam Deputy Speaker: It may well be wrong, but it is not for the Chair to amend that procedure at this stage. I simply tell hon. Members that this is a procedure which has been accepted by the House for a long time.

Mr. Barnes: I was discussing Sharpe Pritchard, parliamentary agents, who have also been mentioned in many points of order, and suggesting that Redbridge borough council should have an opportunity to get itself new parliamentary agents. Given the money that Sharpe Pritchard made out of this and the inept and incompetent way in which it handled the matter, especially in connection with the debate on 15 October, the company should be known as "Sharp Practice" rather than Sharpe Pritchard.

Mr. Cryer: Sharpe Pritchard may not be at fault, because, although the usual practice has been described, it is not the usual practice for parliamentary agents to put forward amendments as being made in the other place when there is no evidence that such amendments were ever made. All parliamentary agents are meant to do is to transmit information about decisions that have been made in this House or another place. If parliamentary agents transmit information about uncorroborated amendments made in another place, it means that they can insert their own decisions into the proceedings of this House, which must be unprecedented. Perhaps my hon. Friend will dwell on how the blame should be apportioned. Presumably Sharpe Pritchard had evidence of the amendment being made, so I wonder whether it provided any of that documentation to my hon. Friend to justify its action.

Mr. Barnes: It would have been helpful if the documentation from Sharpe Pritchard had included such evidence. If it at least referred to the relevant parliamentary papers, right hon. and hon. Members could then check in the Library whether everything was in order. Sharpe Pritchard's payments should presumably be based on such arrangements. If Sharpe Pritchard are not to blame but someone in Parliament, then that too should be a subject for examination.

Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend acknowledge the value of photocopies in clarifying our procedure? The two sheets from Sharpe Pritchard are photocopies. Given that the Bill was withdrawn on a previous occasion, one wonders why Sharpe Pritchard did not go to the trouble of photocopying a document from the other place which would allow us to decide beyond peradventure, as the lawyers expensively say, whether the Lords made the decision in question. Perhaps, however, Sharpe Pritchard cannot locate such a document, in which case it appears that decisions are made not by the geriatric wing in the Lords or even by this House, but by paid agents. That undermines the constitution.

Mr. Barnes: I agree that here are serious constitutional implications.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Your predecessor in the Chair ruled that these proceedings are in order because an amendment was sent


from another place, notwithstanding the fact that there is no evidence available to right hon. and hon. Members that such an amendment was made. So far as I have been able to ascertain today, no such amendment was made in Committee or on Third Reading. We are therefore not clear at what stage it was made. Let us suppose that a mistake has been made in another place. What would be the consequence if this House voted for an amendment from another place which had never been properly made?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I assure the hon. Gentleman and the whole House that the Chair is indivisible. I have been listening to the proceedings, and it seems a pity that right hon. and hon. Members are spending time on points of order which are perfectly legitimate points in making the argument that the Lords amendment should not be considered. I think that it would be better if the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), who has been frequently interrupted, now had my protection and was allowed to continue his speech.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I accept that you listened to the earlier proceedings and have taken account of everything that happened, and from your point of view it is just as well that you did so as we might otherwise be on the second round, and we do not want to subject you to that.
This House is portrayed as the mother of Parliaments and the best of its kind in the world. I do not agree, but that is neither here nor there. The Prime Minister goes trotting off to eastern European countries saying, "Why don't you follow our model?" I am not kidding. Should anyone follow a model in which 1,100 people in the House of Lords, who never open their mouths but just take the money and run, send an amendment to this House, only for us to find that it has not been included in the Bill? My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East had to draw attention to that fact, and the Bill's sponsor is not even present—he has gone on a fact-finding trip somewhere and got his mate to move it, but that hon. Gentleman refuses to talk and will not tell us what has happened to the clause. At 9.15 pm he comes to the Chamber and says, "Sorry, we can't find the clause—you've been debating fresh air, so we'll withdraw it."

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have been round that course umpteen times. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East should be permitted to continue his speech.

Mr. Barnes: I was making the point that there is something odd about Sharpe Pritchard's activities, so it would be advantageous to Redbridge council to vote for consideration of this measure at a later stage because that would give the council time to find fresh parliamentary agents.

Mr. Illsley: My hon. Friend made the point that Sharpe Pritchard made a mistake. My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) mentioned the Lord Chancellor's counsel. The promoters must have access to more information than right hon. and hon. Members do or they could not have included the statement that clause 6 was considered otiose and had been struck from the Bill. How could the promoters so confidently make that statement when the information was not available to right hon. and hon. Members? No one has sought to explain to us why there are so many confusing issues surrounding clause 6.

Mr. Barnes: It would not surprise me if Sharpe Pritchard as the agents and promoters know more about what is going on than we do. We are very short on information about the procedures that have been adopted, and Sharpe Pritchard has not seen fit to provide us with sufficient information to reach a reasonable judgment. The information that hon. Members have been able to dig out throws doubt on whether the amendment has been properly passed by due procedure in another place.

Mr. Illsley: It is clear that the promoters know more than we do because they confidently stated that clause 6 was struck out because it was considered otiose, so why has none of the Bill's supporters come to the House today to explain the promoters' confident statement about clause 6 and to explain who was responsible for striking it out?

Mr. Barnes: It is true that the parliamentary agents should attempt to explain the procedures that have been followed, but if Sharpe Pritchard has not done so there is a duty on the sponsor, who is represented today by the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall), as the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) is in Uruguay. Nevertheless, the hon. Member for Ilford, South should still be able to communicate with the hon. Member for Ilford, North, as should the parliamentary agents, so that the hon. Gentleman can explain to the House the procedures that have been observed.
On 15 October, the hon. Member for Ilford, North introduced this measure. I will read out his entire speech, because it was short:
I beg to move, That the amendment be now considered. Hon. Members may wonder why I rise to speak to the Bill. It is because my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) is with an IPU delegation in Uruguay. He sends his apologies for not being able to be here. I shall say nothing more about the Bill because it has been debated in both Houses and in Committee."—[Official Report, 15 October 1990; Vol. 177, c. 983.]
Like other hon. Members, I do not believe that it has been debated in the House of Lords. In any case, that was the whole explanation that we have had, together with a small statement from the parliamentary agents which came out the second time around.
We are completely in the dark, and it is right that points of order about procedural improprieties should be raised and considered. We are not protecting Redbridge, although it is beginning to be involved—we are protecting parliamentary procedures and processes, and the constitution.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The crux of the matter that we have now been debating for more than 45 minutes is a simple point that could be easily resolved. Was the amendment made in the House of Lords? If so, was it made in Committee notwithstanding its apparent absence from the record? Was it made in some other way to which we are not privy? Or was it made on Third Reading? The agents are sitting listening to this debate and my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North is present, so it would be an extremely easy matter to give this information to the House. As it has not been given, however, we are entitled to assume that the amendment was not properly made, in which case the debate should not continue because we are debating an amendment that was never made, so the debate has no standing.

Mr. Barnes: I certainly feel that the hon. Member for Ilford, North is obliged to explain the whole process to us


and to fill in the blanks in our understanding. He might want to do that in a series of interventions or he might want to wait until after my brief speech. I will happily give way to him if he wants to explain matters more fully.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has refused on occasion to allow a measure through on the nod unless the promoters got up and explained in detail what it contained. That led on one occasion—the Adelphi Estate Bill—to a veritable Monty Python show. The Bill was presented without explanation, until my hon. Friend forced some explanation of it. I am sure that a video replay of that occasion could be provided for the House.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you have been following proceedings with your usual care and attention, you will recall my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) asking about hon. Members who have already spoken in the last debate, which turned out to be a non-debate. Madam Deputy Speaker was asked whether they should not be able to speak again. The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) may be intimidated by this procedural difficulty, but I think that your colleague in the Chair made it clear that if such hon. Members sought the leave of the House, they could speak again unless there was an objection. Can you confirm that?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is an expert in parliamentary procedure, but he did not get it quite right. The last debate was in order; it was adjourned, so we resumed it this evening. Certainly, if any hon. Member who has already spoken wants to speak again he will need the leave of the House to do so. The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) would not need the leave of the House if he wished to speak again, but I have noticed that a number of hon. Members have been encouraging him to do so. It is difficult for him to do so, however, when an hon. Member is still on his feet.

Mr. Barnes: I am quite prepared to give way to the hon. Gentleman if he wants to clarify matters, or if he wants to move the adjournment so that he can pull together all the threads of this awkward situation and present us with the details that we require. He seems not to want to take up my offer——

Mr. Barron: Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that the Lord Chancellor's counsel in another place became involved before the Bill had had its Third Reading, so that was when there was an opportunity to object to amendments made without debate. The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) should know those procedures, as he is here to promote the Bill tonight.

Mr. Barnes: Taking over as the sponsor of the Bill, the hon. Member for Ilford, North must be aware of what the debates have covered so far. He could have drawn on that to explain the general position and then allowed questions about the procedural oddities——

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
In view of the unsatisfactory pace of this procedure, and given the many difficulties which you and your

colleagues in the Chair have noticed, would it be in order to adjourn the debate until the Bill's sponsor returns from Uruguay? That seems the sensible thing to do.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That would not be in order. The debate is perfectly in order and we should get on with it. We really do not want delaying tactics.

Mr. Barnes: I know that hon. Members are keenly following the thread of my speech, the points of which all follow on logically from each other. So far I have said that we should vote against considering the amendment. The only way to avert a major constitutional crisis and save both the face of Sharpe Pritchard and the procedures of the House is to vote against this measure. That would give Redbridge council the chance to get new parliamentary agents, because Sharpe Pritchard must be to blame for what happened on 15 October, when we had to debate without the correct documentation and even without copies of the Bill itself.
On 15 October the hon. Member for Romford also mentioned the role of public relations consultants:
Redbridge is also being advised by a well-known firm of public relations consultants … the consultants are being paid £50,000, plus £4,000 a month for expenses".—[Official Report, 15 October 1990; Vol. 177, c. 995.]
Those public relations consultants are doing a fine job. So far, the publicity that they have generated has been about the Bill being killed off on 15 October and about its being resurrected today, when we have revealed the huge difficulties associated with it. This is a proper debate, which has involved almost every hon. Member in the Chamber, apart from the sponsor, all of whom have shown that there are many different procedural problems. Although I have made only two points so far, we have covered a great deal of ground within those two points because of the points of order and intervention.

Mr. Illsley: I am interested to hear what my hon. Friend has to say. Did he suggest that the public relations company was prolonging proceedings on the Bill so as to extend its retainer and its fee?

Mr. Barnes: I do not know what the role of public relations consultants is, but presumably it is to sell the notion of the Redbridge Bill and make it popular. Therefore, they should have handled things in a different way. I do not know what their relationship is with Sharpe Pritchard, but as public relations consultants they should have handed lots of information and explanations to hon. Members, especially those who are liable to be in the Chamber to debate the Bill. Such information would make Members of Parliament more likely to accept what was there because it would seem that a fair job was being done. However, that has not happened and the public relations on the Bill have been disastrous.

Mr. Allen McKay: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) pointed out to the Chair that, as the sponsor of the Bill is in Uruaguay and we have a stand-in, it would be sensible to adjourn the debate until the sponsor returns. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) is a generous person. Despite the fact that, judging by the sheaves of paper in his hand, he could go on for another hour and 10 minutes, I suggest that he cuts short his speech so as to allow the stand-in to explain the situation before we vote on the Bill.

Mr. Barnes: If the hon. Member for Ilford, North told us that he would speak fully to put us in the picture and explain what has happened, which would be a considerable contribution, although we should still need to cross-examine him, I should be willing to end my speech. I would do, what I imagined that I had come here to do, which is to make a few brief points. I am sure that other hon. Members would assist me by allowing me to finish my speech quickly so as to enable the hon. Member to enlighten us. If no great enlightenment came from his speech, I might be allowed a second bite of the cherry if the House gave me leave to speak again.
The hon. Member for Ilford, North gives us no sign that he wishes to join the debate, so I shall continue with my speech and my reasons why we should vote against the amendment. Should we do so, we would give Redbridge council the chance to come to its senses and reorganise itself. I understand that it is now two years since the council first made the decision to pursue this matter.

Mr. O'Brien: The Redbridge council decided to promote the Bill in 1980, and began the consultative exercise. No one has explained to this House, nor to the House of Lords, why clause 6 was included to start with, so my hon. Friend has every right to ask the sponsor to explain both that and why it is now to be taken out.

Mr. Barnes: That seems eminently sensible. I am more than willing to give way to the hon. Member for Ilford, North. I feel a bit like a yo-yo, jumping up and down as all sorts of interventions have been made by various Members—except the one hon. Member who could clarify the situation for us and help us to overcome the problems that we face. If he does not do SO, we shall believe that the problem is insurmountable and we shall vote against the Bill.

Mr. Skinner: After all these hours during the passage of the Bill, we are having one hell of a job getting the sponsor to say anything. Could it be, as we have suggested before, that because the Tories have a majority of 150 these private Bill merchants think that they can just slip Bills through the House of Commons because not all the Tories need to be kept here? They will be got here at the time prescribed by the Whips. The Whips will tell them when to come along and vote on the closure. The sponsor does not speak because the last thing that he wants is for people to understand the Bill. He is interested in getting the closure by getting the troops into the Lobby, out of the dining rooms and the 16 bars. They walk in and the shop stewards—the Whips—are on the door. If they ask what they are voting for, the Whips say, "Never mind about that, get into the Aye Lobby", or the No Lobby, as the case may be. That shows up this Parliament for what it is.
The private Bill procedure is being used in a scandalous fashion by the Tory Government. There is no better example of that than the proceedings on this Bill. The sponsor refuses to tell us why clause 6 was there in the first place or why it is now being taken out. They do not care because they will be using the big block vote to hustle the Bill through—all those people will come rushing out of the woodwork to be told by the Whips how to vote.

Mr. Barnes: I am aware of the procedures adopted to ensure that private Bills that the Government support get through, especially as I have recently had experience on the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill, which we

were discussing on Monday. The power of the Whips descended not merely into the House but into the Committee so that the Government could control the situation. I will not go too far down that road because we are discussing the Redbridge Bill, although the other matters link in because similar procedures are followed.
We have now been told that the Redbridge Bill has been around for 10 years, although it was drafted only a couple of years ago. The decision to make this move was taken with a majority of one on the council, and since that time there have been changes in the make-up of the council, which is presumably facing an election now. What does the council think about the Lords amendment? We have no information on that, although we have an hon. Member who can correct me if what I say is incorrect, and give details about the position.
Redbridge borough council has been faced during the last two years with a whole host of changes which have affected its position. There is the uniform business rale. There is also the poll tax. There have been other changes in local government finance. The council's financial position has changed as well as its political make-up. Next year, however, the position will have changed again because after the next election there will be a Labour Government, so within a year there will be new financial arrangements for local government. The people of Redbridge, as well as many members of Redbridge borough council, do not want the Bill.

9 pm

Mr. Neubert: I shall seek to test the spirit of the proceedings by requesting permission to intervene for a second time in the debate. In case I am denied that opportunity, I will refer to the authority given for the promotion of the Bill within Redbridge borough council. Since a week ago last Monday, I have established the precise voting figures in Redbridge borough council when the Bill was first mooted for promotion. Of the 63 Redbridge borough councillors, nine were not present at the relevant meeting, 12 abstained in the vote on whether to promote the Bill, 10 voted against its promotion and 32 voted for it.
The Local Government Act 1972 requires, in section 239(2), that
A resolution of a local authority to promote or oppose a Bill under subsection (1) above shall be—
(a) passed by a majority of the whole number of the members of the authority at a meeting of the authority held after the requisite notice of the
meeting and of its purpose has been given".
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) will have quickly made his calculations and will now realise that the Bill was given the barest minimum level of support—a majority of just half a councillor, if that is possible, or perhaps a very short councillor. Lest the hon. Gentleman think that that happened on just one evening, I should point out to him that the voting figures were identical the following year when the matter was put to the vote a second time.

Mr. Barnes: That information is invaluable. It reveals that Redbridge obtained the power to promote the Bill by only one vote. Had one other person abstained or voted against promotion of the Bill, Redbridge would not have obtained overall support for it in the council chamber and


would not have been able to proceed with it. The council would have had to consider other methods of extending Redbridge's market facilities.
I understand that the Food Act 1984 contains licensing provisions that the council could have used. It would have been possible for the borough council to follow a different route from the expensive one that it chose to follow. I picked up that point from the speech made by the hon. Member for Romford on 15 October.
The Bill is likely to have knock-on effects. The markets would be oversaturated—a point made by the Market Traders Association, whose headquarters are in Barnsley. The position is the same in this context as it is with the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill. There was much opposition to that Bill, which led to problems in Committee. The procedures involved in battling against that measure were long drawn out. A promise was made at the Conservative party conference that an enabling Act would be introduced under which all the ports could be privatised.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had been under the impression throughout the proceedings that the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) did not intend to speak in the debate, because he could not, but he has certainly been gallivanting about this evening. He has spoken to the parliamentary agents and he is now engaged in little huddled conversations. My hon. Friend and other hon. Members are trying to obtain information from him about the Bill, especially about clause 6, but he refuses to speak in the debate and he prefers to talk to other people. Why is he not imparting the information?
While I am on my feet I have something else to say. Some of the Ministers have been coming in here. I have seen the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Financial Secretary and a Minister from the Home Office. They have walked in, gone to see the Chief Whip or one of the Whips and asked what time the vote will be, saying, "I am at a dinner." The game stinks to high heaven. They are just trying to find out when the vote will be so that they can come in at a time agreed by the Whips. This is a private Bill and they are not supposed to be involved in it. Yet the Whips have told them what time to come. It is high time the Chair took a hand in these affairs. This is supposed to be a private Bill, but the Government's footprints are all over it. Any moment now we shall see the Prime Minister come trotting down from her ivory tower.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is an experienced parliamentarian and he knows that the Chair has nothing to do with these matters. The hon. Gentleman has not raised a point of order, but now that there is an interruption I remind the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) that he is beginning to stray from the motion before the House, which is that the Lords amendment be now considered.

Mr. Skinner: I spy strangers.

Mr. Vivian Bendall: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 141, Noes 41.

Division No. 338]
[9.6 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Jack, Michael


Amess, David
Jackson, Robert


Aspinwall, Jack
Key, Robert


Atkins, Robert
Kilfedder, James


Atkinson, David
King, Roger(B'ham N'thfield)


Baker, Rt Hon K.(Mole Valley)
King, Rt Hon Tom(Bridgwater)


Baker, Nicholas(Dorset N)
Knapman, Roger


Bendall, Vivian
Knight, Greg(Derby North)


Bennett, Nicholas(Pembroke)
Knowles, Michael


Bevan, David Gilroy
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Lawrence, Ivan


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Lee, John(Pendle) r


Boswell, Tim
Leigh, Edward(Gainsbor'gh)


Bottomley, Peter
Lightbown, David


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Lilley, Peter


Brazier, Julian
Lloyd, Peter(Fareham)


Bright, Graham
Lord, Michael


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
MacKay, Andrew(E Berkshire)


Burns, Simon
Maclean, David


Burt, Alistair
McLoughlin, Patrick


Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)
Major, Rt Hon John


Carrington, Matthew
Maples, John


Cash, William
Marshall, John(Hendon S)


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Martin, David(Portsmouth S)


Chapman, Sydney
Maude, Hon Francis


Chope, Christopher
Mellor, David


Clark, Hon Alan(Plym'th S'n)
Mitchell, Andrew(Gedling)


Clarke, Rt Hon K.(Rushcliffe)
Morrison, Rt Hon P(Chester)


Coombs, Anthony(Wyre F'rest)
Moss, Malcolm


Cope, Rt Hon John
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Couchman, James
Nicholson, David(Taunton)


Curry, David
Page, Richard


Davies, Q.(Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Paice, James


Davis, David(Boothferry)
Patnick, Irvine


Dorrell, Stephen
Patten, Rt Hon John


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Pawsey, James


Dunn, Bob
Portillo, Michael


Fallon, Michael
Redwood, John


Fishburn, John Dudley
Roberts, Sir Wyn(Conwy)


Fookes, Dame Janet
Rost, Peter


Forsyth, Michael(Stirling)
Ryder, Richard


Forth, Eric
Sackville, Hon Tom


Freeman, Roger
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Gale, Roger
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Shaw, Sir Giles(Pudsey)


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Shaw, Sir Michael(Scarb')


Goodlad, Alastair
Shephard, Mrs G.(Norfolk SW)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)


Greenway, John(Ryedale)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Griffiths, Peter(Portsmouth N)
Stevens, Lewis


Grist, Ian
Stewart, Allan(Eastwood)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Stewart, Andy(Sherwood)


Hague, William
Summerson, Hugo


Hamilton, Hon Archie(Epsom)
Taylor, Ian(Esher)


Hamilton, Neil(Tatton)
Taylor, John M(Solihull)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Thompson, D.(Calder Valley)


Hanley, Jeremy
Thompson, Patrick(Norwich N)


Harris, David
Thurnham, Peter


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Trippier, David


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Wells, Bowen


Hind, Kenneth
Wheeler, Sir John


Hordern, Sir Peter
Wilkinson, John


Howarth, Alan(Strat'd-on-A)
Winterton, Nicholas


Howarth, G.(Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Wood, Timothy


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Yeo, Tim


Howell, Rt Hon David(G'dford)
Young, Sir George(Acton)


Howells, Geraint



Hughes, Robert G.(Harrow W)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hunt, David(Wirral W)
Mr. Jacques Arnold and Mr. James Arbuthnot.


Irvine, Michael





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Beggs, Roy


Allen, Graham
Buckley, George J.


Barnes, Harry(Derbyshire NE)
Budgen, Nicholas






Cohen, Harry
Morley, Elliot


Cryer, Bob
Neubert, Michael


Cummings, John
O'Brien, William


Dalyell, Tam
Pike, Peter L.


Davies, Ron(Caerphilly)
Powell, Ray(Ogmore)


Davis, Terry(B'ham Hodge H'l)
Primarolo, Dawn


Dixon, Don
Ruddock, Joan


Evans, John(St Helens N)
Sheerman, Barry


Forsythe, Clifford(Antrim S)
Sillars, Jim


Fraser, John
Skinner, Dennis


Golding, Mrs Llin
Smyth, Rev Martin(Belfast S)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Spearing, Nigel


Hughes, Simon(Southwark)
Wareing, Robert N.


Illsley, Eric
Welsh, Andrew(Angus E)


Ingram, Adam
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Lofthouse, Geoffrey



McKay, Allen(Barnsley West)
Tellers for the Noes:


Meale, Alan
Mr. Terry Patchett and Sir Nicholas Bonsor.


Michie, Bill(Sheffield Heeley)



Morgan, Rhodri

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the Lords amendment be now considered:—

The House divided: Ayes 139, Noes 30.

Division No. 339]
[9.19 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Griffiths, Peter(Portsmouth N)


Amess, David
Grist, Ian


Aspinwall, Jack
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Atkinson, David
Hague, William


Baker, Rt Hon K.(Mole Valley)
Hamilton, Hon Archie(Epsom)


Baker, Nicholas(Dorset N)
Hamilton, Neil(Tatton)


Bendall, Vivian
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bennett, Nicholas(Pembroke)
Hanley, Jeremy


Bevan, David Gilroy
Harris, David


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Boswell, Tim
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Bottomley, Peter
Hind, Kenneth


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hordern, Sir Peter


Bright, Graham
Howarth, Alan(Strat'd-on-A)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Howarth, G.(Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Howell, Rt Hon David(G'dford)


Burns, Simon
Howells, Geraint


Burt, Alistair
Hughes, Robert G.(Harrow W)


Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)
Hunt, David(Wirral W)


Carrington, Matthew
Irvine, Michael


Cash, William
Jack, Michael


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Jackson, Robert


Chapman, Sydney
Key, Robert


Chope, Christopher
Kilfedder, James


Clark, Hon Alan(Plym'th S'n)
King, Roger(B'ham N'thfield)


Clarke, Rt Hon K.(Rushcliffe)
King, Rt Hon Tom(Bridgwater)


Coombs, Anthony(Wyre F'rest)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Cope, Rt Hon John
Knight, Greg(Derby North)


Couchman, James
Lawrence, Ivan


Curry, David
Lee, John(Pendle)


Davies, Q.(Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Leigh, Edward(Gainsbor'gh)


Davis, David(Boothferry)
Lilley, Peter


Dorrell, Stephen
Lloyd, Peter(Fareham)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lord, Michael


Dunn, Bob
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fallon, Michael
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fearn, Ronald
MacKay, Andrew(E Berkshire)


Fishburn, John Dudley "
Maclean, David


Fookes, Dame Janet
McLoughlin, Patrick


Forman, Nigel
Major, Rt Hon John


Forsyth, Michael(Stirling)
Malins, Humfrey


Forth, Eric
Maples, John


Freeman, Roger
Marshall, John(Hendon S)


Gale, Roger
Martin, David(Portsmouth S)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mellor, David


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Mitchell, Andrew(Gedling)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Morrison, Rt Hon P(Chester)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Greenway, John(Ryedale)
Nicholson, David(Taunton)





Page, Richard
Stewart, Andy(Sherwood)


Paice, James
Summerson, Hugo


Patnick, Irvine
Taylor, Ian(Esher)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Taylor, John M(Solihull)


Pawsey, James
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Portillo, Michael
Thompson, D.(Calder Valley)


Redwood, John
Thompson, Patrick(Norwich N)


Roberts, Sir Wyn(Conwy)
Thurnham, Peter


Rost, Peter
Trippier, David


Ryder, Richard
Wells, Bowen


Sackville, Hon Tom
Wheeler, Sir John


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Wilkinson, John


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Winterton, Nicholas


Shaw, Sir Giles(Pudsey)
Wood, Timothy


Shaw, Sir Michael(Scarb')
Yeo, Tim


Shephard, Mrs G.(Norfolk SW)
Young, Sir George(Acton)


Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)



Shersby, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Mr. Jacques Arnold and Mr. James Arbuthnot.


Stevens, Lewis



Stewart, Allan(Eastwood)





NOES


Allen, Graham
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Barnes, Harry(Derbyshire NE)
McKay, Allen(Barnsley West)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Meale, Alan


Buckley, George J.
Michie, Bill(Sheffield Heeley)


Budgen, Nicholas
O'Brien, William


Cohen, Harry
Pike, Peter L.


Cryer, Bob
Powell, Ray(Ogmore)


Cummings, John
Primarolo, Dawn


Dalyell, Tam
Ruddock, Joan


Davies, Ron(Caerphilly)
Sheerman, Barry


Dixon, Don
Skinner, Dennis


Golding, Mrs Llin
Spearing, Nigel


Home Robertson, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)



Hughes, Simon(Southwark)
Tellers for the Noes:


Leighton, Ron
Mr. Michael Neubert and Mr. Terry Patchett.


Lightbown, David

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment accordingly considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Mr. Alan Meale: I spy strangers. [Interruption.] I spy strangers.

Notice being taken that strangers were present, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 143 ( Withdrawal of strangers from House), put forthwith the Question, That strangers do withdraw:—

The House divided: Ayes 1, Noes 137.

Division No. 340]
[9.30 pm


AYES


Gregory, Conal
Tellers for the Ayes:



Mr. Harry Barnes and Mr. Alan Meale.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Amess, David
Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Arbuthnot, James
Burns, Simon


Arnold, Jacques(Gravesham)
Burt, Alistair


Aspinwall, Jack
Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)


Atkins, Robert
Cash, William


Baker, Rt Hon K.(Mole Valley)
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Beggs, Roy
Chapman, Sydney


Bendall, Vivian
Chope, Christopher


Bennett, Nicholas(Pembroke)
Clarke, Rt Hon K.(Rushcliffe)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Cohen, Harry


Boswell, Tim
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Bottomley, Peter
Cope, Rt Hon John


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Couchman, James


Bowis, John
Cryer, Bob






Curry, David
Lilley, Peter


Dalyell, Tam
Lloyd, Peter(Fareham)


Davies, Q.(Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Davis, David(Boothferry)
McKay, Allen(Barnsley West)


Dixon, Don
Maclean, David


Dorrell, Stephen
McLoughlin, Patrick


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Major, Rt Hon John


Fallon, Michael
Malins, Humfrey


Fearn, Ronald
Maples, John


Fookes, Dame Janet
Marshall, John(Hendon S)


Forsyth, Michael(Stirling)
Martin, David(Portsmouth S)


Forsythe, Clifford(Antrim S)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Forth, Eric
Mitchell, Andrew(Gedling)


Fraser, John
Morley, Elliot


Freeman, Roger
Morrison, Rt Hon P(Chester)


Gale, Roger
Neubert, Michael


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Page, Richard


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Paice, James


Golding, Mrs Llin
Parry, Robert


Goodlad, Alastair
Patchett, Terry


Gordon, Mildred
Patnick, Irvine


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Patten, Rt Hon John


Gregory, Conal
Portillo, Michael


Griffiths, Peter(Portsmouth N)
Primarolo, Dawn


Grist, Ian
Redwood, John


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Roberts, Sir Wyn(Conwy)


Hague, William
Ryder, Richard


Hamilton, Hon Archie(Epsom)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Hamilton, Neil(Tatton)
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Hampson, Dr Keith
Salmond, Alex


Harris, David
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Shaw, Sir Giles(Pudsey)


Hayward, Robert
Shaw, Sir Michael(Scarb')


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Shephard, Mrs G.(Norfolk SW)


Hind, Kenneth
Skinner, Dennis


Howarth, Alan(Strat'd-on-A)
Stevens, Lewis


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Stewart, Allan(Eastwood)


Howells, Geraint
Stewart, Andy(Sherwood)


Hughes, Robert G.(Harrow W)
Summerson, Hugo


Hughes, Simon(Southwark)
Taylor, John M(Solihull)


Hunt, David(Wirral W)
Thompson, D.(Calder Valley)


Irvine, Michael
Thompson, Patrick(Norwich N)


Jack, Michael
Thumham, Peter


Jackson, Robert
Trippier, David


Jones, Barry(Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Key, Robert
Welsh, Andrew(Angus E)


Kilfedder, James
Wheeler, Sir John


King, Roger(B'ham N'thfield)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


King, Rt Hon Tom(Bridgwater)
Wood, Timothy


Kirkhope, Timothy
Young, Sir George(Acton)


Knapman, Roger



Knight, Greg(Derby North)
Tellers for the Noes:


Knowles, Michael
Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Nicholas Baker.


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman



Leigh, Edward(Gainsbor'gh)

Question accordingly negatived.

Question again proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Bendall: I beg to move.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Genuine concern has been expressed at this amendment and it is a discourtesy to the House for the sponsor, albeit standing in for someone else, to seek to move the amendment as he has. He has full responsibility for promoting the Bill and he has a duty to provide the House with information about the origin, source and, most importantly, the verification of the amendment. As you will be aware, there is no evidence that this amendment was ever considered by the House of Lords. We are entitled to something more than the shortest possible sentence muttered by the sponsor of the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) has moved the Lords amendment and he is perfectly within his rights to do so.

Mr. Neubert: We must now proceed to discuss the proposed Lords amendment to delete clause 6. Before I do so, however, I must say how surprised I am to find myself ranged against so many former colleagues in government and other hon. Friends. They have given this Bill intermittent support throughout its proceedings, no doubt in the belief that they are spurring us on to greater competition, whereas the Bill seeks to create a new market monopoly within the London borough of Redbridge.
Little progress has been made in respect of greater competition and I find it difficult to accept that Romford should be singled out for special treatment when there are so many other charter markets in the country and the Government are not prepared to take action to reform the system. That argument must be left to one side, however, and we must consider clause 6, which deals with the transfer of rights. That clause, now that we have it in print in the Bill, states:
Any person entitled or authorised by virtue of this Act to hold a market may transfer or dispose of all or part of his rights to another and that other shall have and may exercise to the extent authorised by the Council all or any of the powers which the Council have in relation to markets established by them under section 50 of the Act of 1984 other than any power to make byelaws but shall be subject to all the restrictions, liabilities and obligations in respect thereof to which the Council are subject:
That part of clause 6 was in the original Bill as deposited in this House, but a Committee of the House added the further line,
provided that no such transfer or disposal of rights shall take effect without the consent in writing of the Council.
Since the debate on 15 October we have had the benefit of a statement issued by the promoters' agents, who were asked repeatedly during our proceedings on 15 October to explain the Lords amendment, the authority for which is still in some doubt. We are still unclear as to why it has come before us tonight despite repeated exchanges attempting to elicit that information.
The statement on behalf of the promoters answers the question, and, like all good examinees, the promoters answer the question on one side of one piece of paper. The statement says:
The Bill is promoted by the Council of the London Borough of Redbridge ('the Council'). It would authorise the Council to establish a market on a site near the town centre of Ilford.
It does not make the point that the market will be fully protected by law and have a monopoly in the London borough of Redbridge so that by supporting the Bill Members of Parliament are seeking to create a new market monopoly in the London borough of Redbridge.
9.45 pm
Paragraph 2 of the statement continues:
In the opposed Bill Committee in the House of Commons, amendments were made in consequence of the Petition of the London Borough of Havering. One of these amendments was to delete the power for the Council to authorise others to establish a market.
Paragraph 3 states:
Clause 6 of the Bill dealt with the power to transfer market rights conferred by the Bill. In view of the decision to make the amendment referred to above, clause 6 became otiose and was struck out at Committee stage in the House of Lords. That is the only amendment for consideration.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Can he enlighten the House as to the consequences of removing the two clauses? I do not understand whether, as a result of that, the council will have the right to transfer its rights to hold a market.

Mr. Neubert: Before I respond to my hon. Friend, let me say that the statement that I read out at least takes the place of the explanation that we were owed by the sponsor, my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall), who has stolidly sought not to contribute to proceedings other than by formally moving the amendment a minute or so ago. The statement has clarified the position, but we need to read and comment on the statement and examine it more closely.
I am reassured to find that the statement confirms my speculation on 15 October, which appears in column 995 of Hansard for that day, that the reason for the proposed deletion was in relation to the previous clause 3(2), which was amended by a Committee of this House. It sought to give Redbridge the right to hold other markets, and it has now been removed.
The history of the clause which it is now proposed to delete is that it was originally included, added to in Committee, its removal was sought, in part, on Report on 27 February in the House and, after Third Reading, it went to the Lords. The proposed deletion comes before us for examination tonight as a result of our recent decision in the Lobby.
The clause refers to transfer of rights. We must examine what these rights are to know what the clause is about. They seem to arise under section 50 of the Food Act 1984. Under that Act, a market is sought in the London borough of Redbridge. Section 50, in part III of the Act, gives power to the local authority to set up a market and gives some of the rights that may be transferred under clause 6. Section 50 states:
(I) The council of a district may—
(a) establish a market within their district;
(b) acquire by agreement (but not otherwise), either by purchase or on lease, the whole or any part of an existing market undertaking within their district".
Redbridge council proposes a new market in relation to substantial commercial development, so it is seeking powers to establish such a market under the Act.
The powers and rights attached to the Act and proposed for transfer in the clause include, under section 51, the power to sell a market undertaking to a local authority. That would not, arise in this case because the owner of the market undertaking is a local authority, the London borough of Redbridge, the Bill's promoter.
Market days and hours are prescribed in section 52, which says:
A market authority may appoint the days on which, and the hours during which, markets are to be held.
Presumably that is one right that can be transferred. We had a great deal of debate earlier on the number of days on which such a market would be held because in Romford the market is held on three days a week and the Bill would give Redbridge the opportunity to hold a market on six days a week.
Another right that is conferred by the Food Act relates to charges. Section 53 says:
A market authority may demand in respect of the market, and in respect of the weighing and measuring of articles and vehicles, such charges as they may from time to time determine.

It goes on to deal with the provision of a weighing machine for weighing cattle, sheep or swine. Presumably that will not be relevant to Redbridge's market which we understand will not be a market for livestock.
Section 53(3)(a) says that the authority
shall keep exhibited in conspicuous places in the market place, and in any market house, tables stating in large arid legibly printed characters the several charges payable under this Part".
If they were relevant, that would be one of the obligations mentioned in clause 6 as also transferring to another owner. Section 53(3)(b) says that the authority
shall keep so much of the tables as relates to charges payable in respect of the weighing of vehicles, or, as the case may be, in respect of the weighing of animals, conspicuously exhibited at every weighing machine provided by them in connection with the market for the purpose.
Those are considerable rights that are to be transferred to the alternative owner, if it is not to be the London borough of Redbridge. Time is prescribed for the payment of those charges and presumably that is another right that is transferred.
Section 55 gives powers to the market owner to recover charges either summarily as a civil debt, or in any court of competent jurisdiction, if it should go that far, and to levy a charge by distress. Section 56 prohibits sales in market hours. Section 57 describes the weighing machines and scales. Section 58 describes the weighing of articles, and section 59 deals with information for the market officer.
Finally, section 60 deals with byelaws and says:
A local authority who maintain a market, whether or not they are a market authority within the meaning of this Act, may make byelaws—
(a) for regulating the use of the market place, and the buildings, stalls, pens and standings in that market place;
(b) for preventing nuisances or obstructions in the market place, or in the immediate approaches to it;
(c) for regulating porters and carriers resorting to the market, and fixing the charges to be made for carrying articles from the market within the district."
I hope that that is a sufficiently comprehensive summary of the rights and powers that would accrue to Redbridge under this Act, should the Bill reach the statute book, as owners of the new market to be established at Ilford. I am not sure whether the transfer of rights relates to another owner or operator of the market or to the individual stallholders.
We had an interesting debate on clause 6 on Report on 27 February when my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) moved an amendment to it. He much regrets that he cannot be here tonight, but he has been active throughout the Bill's proceedings. My hon. Friend's amendment and the debate that followed it proceeded on the basis that clause 6 concerned the transfer of individual stallholders' rights. Let me explain why I believe that to be the case. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone. (Miss Widdecombe), another stalwart opponent of the Bill, unfortunately cannot be here. She is in the Cambridge Union tonight debating abortion. We know how sincere she is in her commitment to that cause. Only the issue of life itself would prevent her from being here to see her opposition to the Bill through to the end. On 27 February, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone, speaking to clause 6, said:
The clause implies that there will be something unique about markets in future. If someone wishes to set up shop, he can do so in the knowledge that he can dispose of that shop—a greengrocer's or hairdresser's shop or whatever—so long


as there is no change of use. All is well—he can go ahead and sell the business. That will have quite an effect on his decision to set up business in the first place and on how he assesses his competitiveness.
There is no indication there that we were talking about one local authority or another or an institution, but about a shopkeeper, an individual business man or woman.
That reading of the clause is confirmed by the sponsor, whose absence in Uruguay we regret. Intervening to answer the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone, he said:
First, it is normal for a landlord to have a right to approve a change of tenant. That is a normal procedure and is therefore quite normal in this case. On the question of whether people should have an automatic right, the London borough of Havering and most other councils which control markets find it desirable to be able to stipulate whether they approve of the person to whom the market trader intends to pass on his stall.
That is a very real issue in the world of open air markets, because the rights of individual stallholders not only to prosecute their own business but to pass it on when the time comes to members of their family is crucial.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South added:
They do not wish to do so for reasons of nepotism or anything of that sort but simply to ensure that the trader who takes over is honest and reliable and will provide a reasonable service to the community. That is a perfectly reasonable thing for the public to expect. That is why the council would wish to be involved in that process.
That point particularly relates to the last two lines of the clause, which stipulate that no transfer should take place other than with the consent of the council, which in this case is the London borough of Redbridge.
That theme was taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), who asked this of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone:
Does she accept that the circumstances of a market are slightly different from those of a row of shops? One knows that simply from practical experience. Market traders arc close up against one another. They can move stall to stall and, indeed, may be seen doing so. Property can, as it were, move sideways. In contrast, shops are normally separate lock-up establishments in a defined space and much easier to defend."—[Official Report, 27 February 1990; Vol. 168, c. 208–11]
All that suggests—

Mr. Bendall: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put, but Mr. Deputy Speaker withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. Neubert: All that suggests that right hon. and hon. Members were under the impression on 27 February that the rights in question related to the rights of the individual stallholder, but I am not sure that that is the case. I wonder whether it is not the case instead that the rights and obligations that flow from clause 6 are to be transferred not in relation to individual stallholders but rather to the persons or institution who operate the market.
The Committee, to which the House must be indebted, reported that it was not prepared to allow the original clause 3—to which clause 6 is linked—to stand, because it provided not only for a monopoly market to be established in Ilford but for other markets that it would be within the power of the London borough of Redbridge to grant to other operators.
It was because of the transfer of those rights to those operators that clause 6 was necessary. I should be grateful for clarification on this from the sponsor of the Bill. I

should have welcomed a contribution from the Under-Secretary, too, since he has a similar market in his constituency which might be threatened by the potential precedent of this Bill. I should be grateful for an explanation from him or from the sponsor about whether the transfer of rights comes down to stallholders——

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the debate be resumed tomorrow.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,

That, at this day's sitting, the Motion relating to the London Underground Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

The House divided: Ayes 153, Noes 29.

Division No. 341]
[10 pm


AYES


Amess, David
Hamilton, Hon Archie(Epsom)


Arbuthnot, James
Hamilton, Neil(Tatton)


Arnold, Jacques(Gravesham)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Harris, David


Aspinwall, Jack
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Atkins, Robert
Hayward, Robert


Atkinson, David
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Baker, Rt Hon K.(Mole Valley)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Baker, Nicholas(Dorset N)
Hind, Kenneth


Baldry, Tony
Hordern, Sir Peter


Bendall, Vivian
Howarth, Alan(Strat'd-on-A)


Bennett, Nicholas(Pembroke)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Bevan, David Gilroy
Howell, Rt Hon David(G'dford)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Howells, Geraint


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hughes, Robert G.(Harrow W)


Bottomley, Peter
Hughes, Simon(Southwark)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hunt, David(Wirral W)


Bowis, John
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Bright, Graham
Irvine, Michael


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Jack, Michael


Burns, Simon
Jackson, Robert


Burt, Alistair
Key, Robert


Butterfill, John
Kilfedder, James


Carlisle, John,(Luton N)
King, Roger(B'ham N'thfield)


Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Cash, William
Knapman, Roger


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Knight, Greg(Derby North)


Chapman, Sydney
Knowles, Michael


Clark, Hon Alan(Plym'th S'n)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Clarke, Rt Hon K.(Rushcliffe)
Lee, John(Pendle)


Coombs, Anthony(Wyre F'rest)
Leigh, Edward(Gainsbor'gh)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Couchman, James
Lester, Jim(Broxtowe)


Curry, David
Lightbown, David


Davies, Q.(Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Lloyd, Peter(Fareham)


Davis, David(Boothferry)
Lord, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Emery, Sir Peter
MacKay, Andrew(E Berkshire)


Fearn, Ronald
Maclean, David


Fishburn, John Dudley
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fookes, Dame Janet
Major, Rt Hon John


Forman, Nigel
Malins, Humfrey


Forth, Eric
Maples, John


Freeman, Roger
Marshall, John(Hendon S)


Gale, Roger
Martin, David(Portsmouth S)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mates, Michael


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Goodlad, Alastair
Mellor, David


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Miller, Sir Hal


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mitchell, Andrew(Gedling)


Greenway, Harry(Ealing N)
Morrison, Rt Hon P(Chester)


Greenway, John(Ryedale)
Moss, Malcolm


Gregory, Conal
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Griffiths, Peter(Portsmouth N)
Neubert, Michael


Grist, Ian
Nicholson, David(Taunton)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hague, William
Page, Richard






Paice, James
Stewart, Andy(Sherwood)


Patnick, Irvine
Summerson, Hugo


Patten, Rt Hon Chris(Bath)
Taylor, Ian(Esher)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Taylor, John M(Solihull)


Portillo, Michael
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Redwood, John
Thompson, D.(Calder Valley)


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Thompson, Patrick(Norwich N)


Roberts, Sir Wyn(Conwy)
Thurnham, Peter


Rost, Peter
Ttippier, David


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Ryder, Richard
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Sackville, Hon Tom
Wells, Bowen


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Wheeler, Sir John


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wilkinson, John


Shaw, Sir Giles(Pudsey)
Yeo, Tim


Shaw, Sir Michael(Scarb')
Young, Sir George(Acton)


Shelton, Sir William



Shephard, Mrs G.(Norfolk SW)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)
Mr. Tim Boswell and Mr. Timothy Wood.


Stevens, Lewis



Stewart, Allan(Eastwood)





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Nellist, Dave


Barnes, Harry(Derbyshire NE)
O'Brien, William


Cohen, Harry
Parry, Robert


Dalyell, Tam
Patchett, Terry


Davies, Ron(Caerphilly)
Pike, Peter L.


Dixon, Don
Primarolo, Dawn


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Salmond, Alex


Golding, Mrs Llin
Sheerman, Barry


Hoey, Ms Kate(Vauxhall)
Skinner, Dennis


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Spearing, Nigel


Lamond, James
Welsh, Andrew(Angus E)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Wise, Mrs Audrey


McCartney, Ian



McKay, Allen(Barnsley West)
Tellers for the Noes:


Meale, Alan
Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. George Buckley.


Morgan, Rhodri



Mullin, Chris

Question accordingly agreed to.

London Underground Bill

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That the Promoters of the London Underground Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;

That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;

That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);

That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;

That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;

That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;

That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: May I explain, in support of the motion, the purpose of the Bill? The Jubilee line extension would be the first major extension of London Underground since the Jubilee line was opened about 10 years ago. It would extend the Jubilee line from Green Park to Stratford. That would create the opportunity to provide direct underground connections for established communities in two areas: south of the river in Bermondsey and Southwark, and between Stratford and Canning Town. It would also assist the redevelopment of three areas: around Canada water, on the Isle of Dogs and on the north Greenwich peninsula where the Greenwich gas works used to be.
There appears to be some confusion about the route between Canary wharf and Canning Town. I confirm that the route that the promoters intend to put before the Committee is the alignment through the north Greenwich peninsula. That is the route proposed in the additional provision for which the Department has given permission. It would thus bring public rail transport to some parts of the area for the first time.
The debate is on the single procedural question whether the Bill should be allowed to continue into the next Session. I hope that it will. The promoters would not have enough time between now and 20 November, the deadline for depositing private Bills, to prepare a new book of reference, all the fresh plans and the other documentation that is necessary to produce a new Bill incorporating all the amendments in the additional provision.
I am aware that not all the decisions so far taken about the Bill are to everyone's liking and, if the Bill is allowed to continue, the Committee will no doubt be asked to consider many areas as part of its consideration of the petitions lodged against it. On the stations at Southwark and Bermondsey, I greatly welcome the decision announced yesterday by my hon. Friend the Minister to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I congratulate the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey on his tenacity and the campaign he has fought to ensure that the line, which will inevitably go through his constituency, will have two fine stations to serve his constituents.
The Committee has been instructed already by the House to consider two further matters. The House will know that the works required to reconstruct the existing station at Westminster to provide for the Jubilee line extension were discussed at length during the proceedings in the Services Committee and on Second Reading, which took five hours on 12 and 24 July. The Westminster issue will be discussed again in Committee as a result of the instruction in the name of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell).
The second instruction, in the name of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and other hon. Members representing east London constituencies, requires the Committee to consider the effects of the railway on regeneration and employment in docklands and the lower Lee valley. I hope that the House will agree that the Committee is the best place for discussion on that to continue, as it is on almost every other matter that could be brought to our attention. There will be two more opportunities to discuss the Bill on the Floor of the House, and if right hon. and hon. Members choose, they can seek to catch the Chair's eye on those occasions.
I believe that the Jubilee line extension can make a major contribution to the improvement of rail transport in areas of London not currently well served. It will contribute to the regeneration of areas of London in need of assistance. It can do that only if it is allowed to continue in the next Session. There is no alternative method of proceeding. Therefore, I urge hon. Members on both sides to support the carry-over motion.

Miss Kate Hoey: I have no intention of trying to prevent the Bill going on to its next stage, at which we are all aware that many petitioners will bring forward objections. I wish to use this opportunity to place on record some of the views of my constituents, their concerns about the extension of the Jubilee line and the effect that it will have on the Waterloo area, and to issue a warning—not a threat—that there will have to be a substantial change in what is planned at Waterloo before the Bill is given an easy passage in Committee.
The majority of petitioners from my constituency will not be satisfied with anything less than a real attempt to overcome the problem affecting Jubilee gardens—a precious open-space site by the riverside and a public amenity which has been used for many years for all kinds of events. That site will be threatened during the building of the extension because the Bill seeks powers to take over a section of Jubilee gardens as a temporary work site from

which all the running and platform tunnels between Green Park and Waterloo will be excavated. The site would also include a temporary access shaft and a jetty for the loading of excavated tunnel spoil on to barges for removal.
I am pleased that London Underground has satisfied us that the riverside walk will be kept open, but more than a third of Jubilee gardens is threatened. The irony is that there is no need for London Underground to use that part of Jubilee gardens. I am sure that it has considered other sites in London and Westminster. Jubilee gardens is simply the easiest because there is nothing built on it, but what seems the easiest and cheapest solution may not be in the best interests not only of the people who live in the immediate environment but of the people of London as a whole.
There is a better site within Jubilee gardens that London Underground would prefer to use. It is not covered in grass and is being used not by the public but as a car park. It is closer to the river and would be cheaper. London Underground has not suggested that site because it is part of the development plans of the County Hall Development Group. London Underground did not feel able to say that it wanted to use that site or to ask the House to give it permission to do so.
All the people in the area believe that that was misguided and that London Underground is proposing an expensive solution when a cheaper one is available. The only problem was that it would have upset the county hall developers. Yet it seems not to matter that the proposed solution will upset the people of Waterloo and of London as a whole.
There is still an opportunity for Department of Transport Ministers and the Secretary of State for the Environment to put their heads together and work out a solution. As the County Hall Development Group has gone bankrupt, it is strange that the Secretary of State for the Environment is continuing to consider planning permission. The London Residuary Body, which did not give evidence to the public inquiry, is being allowed to carry on with the development when there are perfectly satisfactory alternatives for the use of county hall. I am sure that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) will mention the London charitable trust, which has some good and exciting plans for the development of county hall.
The Minister should get together with the Secretary of State for the Environment and tell anyone who comes forward with a new plan for county hall that he will consider their plan only as part of any planning permission. I hope that the Secretary of State will follow the recommendations of the public inquiry and the inspector and say that the development is not on. The inspector did not want the development to proceed, but was overruled by the Secretary of State, who has given the developers until 7 November to table amendments.
I hope that the Secretary of State will tell the developers that he will consider development only if, as part of that development, they say, "We shall not use this part of county hall until the Jubilee line is finished"—in other words, that planning permission will not be granted for the car park site at county hall, which the developers want to make into a landscape garden for private flats and part of a hotel, unless the Secretary of State is minded to grant it. The Secretary of State should say, "It must be a condition of the planning permission that that part of the site is to be used by London Underground to develop the Jubilee line."
That would satisfy London Underground. It would also satisfy people in the Waterloo area, who fear that Jubilee gardens will be lost to public use for at least six to eight years. The county hall development could still go ahead without the use of that part of the site. That seems an obvious and simple solution. I have not been in this place for very long, but I have discovered that often it is precisely the obvious and simple solutions which, for some reason or other, we cannot adopt. I therefore ask the Minister to explain why that cannot be done. I know that London Underground has written to the Secretary of State suggesting that it should be considered if anything should happen to the County Hall Development Group planning application. which I remind hon. Members yet again is already defunct.

Mr. Ray Powell: County hall could solve a lot of the problems faced by the New Building Sub-Committee. It would help us greatly if we could acquire that building for accommodation purposes. Can my hon. Friend explain in detail her statement that the development group is defunct?

Miss Hoey: I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to elaborate. County hall is sitting empty across the river. There are many rooms in that building. I am sure that all the hon. Members present have been to see county hall at some stage. The development group envisaged turning the building into an elaborate hotel. I think that the Government's plan was that people could come in from France on the channel tunnel fast rail link and stay at a super-duper hotel at Waterloo while having private treatment at St. Thomas's hospital just round the corner, which the Government want to allow to opt out of the national health service. That is one scenario, anyway.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that county hall is sitting empty. The development group has gone bankrupt. Unfortunately, however, there was a joint planning application between that development group and the "ultra-democratic" London Residuary Body—the body set up to take over and look after all the responsibilities of the GLC and the ILEA. I know that my hon. Friend comes from a long way away from London, and that is why I am going into a certain amount of detail. County hall has been in London's use as a public building for a very long time. Labour Members believe, and I know that my colleagues in the other opposition parties also believe, that the building should be maintained for public use by Londoners.
Now that the development group has gone bankrupt, there is no plan and any new developer may not want exactly what the County Hall Development Group had in mind. We now have the opportunity to save and speed up the extension of the Jubilee line while satisfying those who do not want Jubilee gardens to be threatened. However, the gardens are not threatened only by the Jubilee line extension. Had that been the only threat, we could probably have lived with it and London Underground could have used a part of the area which would not involve taking out too much of the green space, but the gardens are also threatened by the development of county hall and by the south bank development.
Jubilee gardens is being whittled away. I share hon. Members' concern about the problems that will arise in the immediate area of the Palace from the extension of the Jubilee line, but many of the staff and Members of this

place walk over Waterloo bridge at lunch time and use Jubilee gardens as a place of respite, to escape the noise, and so on, that we face.
I hope that I have made my point as simply as I intended. There is a solution to the Jubilee gardens problem. The Secretaries of State for Transport and for the Environment must talk, and they must get together with London Underground. It must be made clear to the Secretary of State for the Environment that he must not consider any proposals for county hall unless they allow the London Underground developers to use the area that I have suggested for their work on the line. There will still be problems, but they will not be so serious. The people living around Waterloo are not against the Jubilee line as such, although they may think that it is not the best line for London. We do not want to have to slow down the work, or stop it altogether, but we do want to save Jubilee gardens for Londoners—and there is another way.

Dr. John G. Blackburn: First, let me pay warm and generous tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes), who introduced the motion; secondly, let me with equal sincerity—as the House would expect of me—commend the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), who for some years has been the Chairman of the New Building Sub-Committee. I have had the privilege of serving on that Sub-Committee, and—although I do not represent a constituency in the metropolis—I believe that the work in which I have been engaged allows me to make some valid points.
I feel that I must confine my comments to the procedural motion. I accept without question what my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West said about the benefits that the line will bring, and the provisos outlined so clearly by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey); but I am particularly concerned about the implications for Westminster.
As hon. Members will know, for many years—I am prepared to be quoted on 11 years—there has been a fierce struggle to obtain a new building for us. The building has now been selected and, albeit late in the day, has almost been completed. It is at Westminster station. Many hon. Members use the station; I use it twice a day, and I know how much the public need an improved service. That is one of the blessings that would result from the Bill.
I am a believer in the honourable occupation of compromise, and my work on the Sub-Committee and the discussions with London Underground suggest to me that we are rapidly approaching the point of compromise—good, sound, acceptable compromise. That would be a blessing for the House, especially in regard to the raft that would cover the line and thus give the House an opportunity to proceed with phase 2 of the Bridge street development. The motion is important to every hon. Member who seeks accommodation that is worthy of those who are elected to this place.
I was filled with anger when I examined the original proposals of London Underground. The concept of depositing soil in Parliament square was a violation of all that was sacred to me. That proposal is now almost historical, however. Quiet and sober consideration of the work that has gone into the scheme generally by London Underground, the parliamentary draftsmen and the New rBuilding Sub-Committee, which has worked with great


industry and enthusiasm to improve the lot of hon. Members, will lead to the judgment that a great deal will be placed in jeopardy unless the carry-over motion is agreed to. I hope that the House will approve it.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall has exercised her sovereign right to represent her constituents. I understand that many will petition against the Bill and that there will be difficulties in Committee, but if the motion is agreed to there will be two opportunities on the Floor of the House to consider the petitions and submissions that are presented to us. The rights of those who wish to make their

feelings known will be denied unless consideration of the Bill is allowed to continue next Session.
There is much at stake and this is a momentous occasion in the life of London, the city that we love. It is a momentous occasion also for London Underground. It is vital that the House should allow the Bill to proceed and for energetic and enthusiastic debate to take place in Committee. I wish jealously to safeguard the right of the House to debate it on two further occasions.
If the House approves the procedural motion, it will achieve a great deal for the people of London. This is an historic moment, and perhaps more important than the return of the Bill to the House. I give my wholehearted support to the motion.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Some hon. Members may regret the fact that we are having this debate and I offer them my apologies because I objected when this motion could have gone through on the nod last week. However, this evening I am, happily, able to be much more positive, because, thanks to the Minister's intervention yesterday, to which the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) referred, my principal objection to the Bill as it stood has now been dealt with.
The Bill eventually secured its Second Reading on the basis that there would be a range of stations. The hon. Member for Harrow, West has already referred to that. However, uncertainty had arisen about two of the new stations—not the interchange ones. Coincidentally—at least I hope that it was coincidental—both are in my constituency. Parenthetically, I should add that it is fairly rare to have a constituency with a two-part name and to find that new stations are to be named after each of the parts. I am grateful for that. Much work was done over the summer to try to make sure that the two stations would be a firm part of the Bill—that they were not just on the map, but that they would be built.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Harrow, West for his generous comments a few minutes ago. I have no doubt that if the result of our two-round contest in 1983 had been slightly different and he had become the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey instead of more belatedly becoming the hon. Member for Harrow, West, he would have fought equally as tenaciously for the stations. I have no doubt that that is the right position for any hon. Member representing the constituency.
The result is that we now have the Minister's assurance, for which I am grateful. I should like to say to him and his officials, to London Underground, and to the members and officers of my local authority, Southwark, that the result that we have achieved, of being able to provide the information to satisfy the Minister and the Treasury that the Southwark and Bermondsey stations are justified, has been a tribute to our sensible and positive co-operation.
I hope nonetheless that the Minister will be able to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to deal with one point arising from his written answer in yesterday's Hansard because there has been some ambiguity attaching to a report of his announcement in one edition of yesterday's Evening Standard. A sentence towards the end of the answer states:
The Government are therefore prepared to approve construction of both stations provided the cost of the project as a whole can be held within agreed cost limits."—[Official Report, 23 October 1990; Vol. 178, c. 97.]
I hope that I am correct in my understanding that the stations of Southwark and Bermondsey stand or fall with Parliament's agreement to the line as a whole and with the construction of the line as a whole. The article in the Evening Standard suggested—it was the only press article that I have seen that contained such a suggestion—that the announcement was conditional and required further Treasury endorsement. It is important that we have it on record—this is what I understand and certainly what the Minister's answer implies—that approval has been given, that the money is there, and that the people of Southwark and Bermondsey can now know that they are part of the plan.
However, I do have one quibble about the statement made by London Underground, as promoters, in relation to tonight's debate. The promotional statement sets out three major benefits—a direct connection to the west end and to west and north-west London, connection at Waterloo, serving the commuter suburbs to the west and south-west of London, and a connection at London Bridge, serving the commuter network to the south and south-east of London. I do not dissent from that, but I hope that London Underground now agrees—this has been agreed by the Minister, and all hon. Members who represent London constituencies have argued the point in previous debates—that if the underground line extension is to be justified there must also be some benefit to the people in the communities along the line. It should not just be a line to provide connections for people coming from outside London or the suburbs of London. That is a completely inadequate justification for this proposal.
I do not say that there is no validity in commuter links or that there is no need for the line to be connected properly to Canary wharf. However, happily, as a result of the instruction tabled by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and others of us on Second Reading, the line must be as the Committee is now instructed to make it. It must be integral to the regeneration of local communities and industries. If it is not, the line will be simply a commuter drain. If it is, it will become an important part of the public transport infrastructure in London.
I hope—the Secretary of State was kind enough to refer to this in his reply to me in transport questions on Monday—that increasingly we shall see an extension of public transport in south-east London. The Secretary of State recognised that we have been badly served over many years. The area is still a white hole on the map. At last, thanks to the announcement this week, there are now marks on the map of south-east London where there will be provision of public transport. There needs to be more. The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock), who speaks from the Labour Front Bench, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms. Hoey) and others of us, as well as colleagues who represent constituencies north of the river, have all been sympathetic to that need.
I hope that this will be only the first of several new proposals, and the Minister will know that we hope that hot on the heels of the extension of the Jubilee line will come the extension of the east London line north and south of the river and other provisions.
I wish now to flag up a few specific matters which I know will be dealt with in Committee. I welcome the fact that we shall debate them, but I wish to register that there are matters to be resolved if the general environment of Londoners, particularly those who live along the line, is to be improved, not disadvantaged.
I endorse what the hon. Member for Vauxhall said about the need to rethink the siting of the work in and around Jubilee gardens. I have no doubt, as the representative of the other part of Waterloo, that one could find a way of preserving that green space. Jubilee gardens is the only significant green space along the south of the river. There is a car park immediately next to it, which is far less valuable as an amenity, and I hope that everything will be done to make that, and not the gardens, the work site.
Along the line—I shall limit myself to the parts that affect Southwark—where there are station sites or work


sites London Underground will need to address obvious environmental concerns. I shall simply list them. The traffic implications will have to be considered. In many areas the implications are enormous, including to the west at Union street and Ewer street. I hope that it will be possible to create temporary sidings at Ewer street so that spoil can be removed and materials can be brought in by rail, not by road. That would be far more advantageous. The road network in that part of north Southwark is horrendously congested already. I hope that we shall not add to the congestion.
It appears that there are alternatives to the Druid street site which are away from major roads and junctions. One is in Maltby street and another is on the old Sarsons vinegar factory site. There will be a lot of construction in the area. Phase 2 of the Hay's wharf site is probably about to be developed. Guy's hospital is having a phase 3 development. We cannot add more construction and congestion to that area without great disruption to minor and major arterial roads.
Further along there is a site called Ben Smith Way, which is to be used for construction, although not of a station. There is substantial anxiety in the neighbouring community, particularly about traffic movements. It is a tightly knit residential community. There is an area of sheltered dwellings for old people. There is great anxiety that we reduce lorry movements and that previous difficulties in enforcing controls on construction traffic are not repeated. We must also have a proper system of accountability whereby people's complaints can be dealt with efficiently as and when any environmental nuisance is caused.
The House will be aware that the roads into south-east London, Jamaica road and Lower road are horrendously blocked during peak hours and traffic is stationary. We cannot afford to add to that congestion both in the interests of my constituents, who must cope with the fumes and the noise, and everyone who uses those major routes. Engineering works and new traffic signals will be required to ease congestion. We should also provide the shortest possible routes for lorries.
I hope that an underpass will be provided under Jamaica road, a very busy road, when the Bermondsey station is open. I do not suggest that that underpass should be open when the station is closed as that might be unsafe for people to pass through at night, but when the station is open there should be a safe alternative route underneath the road.
One of the greatest concerns has been voiced by my constituents in the far eastern end of the constituency at Surrey docks, before the proposed line goes under river to Canary wharf. The Minister will be aware that a late change has been proposed for the Canada Water station site. It now intrudes into the Canada estate instead of being located away from it. The estate is a traditional one with a high density and high-rise blocks. For the past 10 years it has been subject to much building work. The residents have now been informed that work on the new station will also spill over on to the estate. I hope that there is an engineering alternative to that unacceptable proposal. Another six years of disruption to that community would be too high a price for those residents to bear.
The other great fear about this new station site is that car users planning to travel to central London will park close to the station. The Canada estate and the streets round it face the prospect of many drivers seeking to find a space. I hope that we shall be able effectively to limit that additional car presence around the estate.
Just before the line goes under the river another works site has been proposed at Durands wharf—on another green space. I do not want to be unpopular with my colleagues north of the river, but is it necessary for this new park to be used as a major work site? Surely there is an engineering alternative that could use the river or a site on the other side of the river—one which is not so important in environmental terms as Durands wharf.
I look forward to the successful progress of the Bill. Perhaps it will be a race against the date of the general election, but I hope that the Bill clears the House by next autumn. I hope that in the meantime the Committee can resolve all the important environmental issues to the satisfaction of the people of Southwark.
I hope that the least noisy trains will be used. I understand that consideration is being given to reducing the decibel limit from 40 to 35 decibels, as practised in the United States. I understand that the best quality resilient track is now available. I hope that that track and quieter trains are used because the least noise the better.
We must also ensure that the provision of an underground system does not lead to additional motor traffic along the route. Local authorities must be able to exercise planning controls and the private transport user must be subject to transport controls. If that happens we shall have a line of great environmental benefit to the area. I hope that that will be the achievement of the Bill which, if the procedural motion is approved, will be carried over for further debate into the next Session of Parliament.
I am grateful for the constructive attitudes that have been displayed by so many people so far. I believe that we are in sight of an extremely succesful addition to the London public transport network. I welcome that and I hope that the motion is approved tonight.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): The Government strongly support the principles behind the Bill, and therefore support the carry-over motion. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes), who spoke succinctly, eloquently and persuasively.
The House will know from the earlier Second Reading debate that the Government have a substantial interest in the objectives of the Bill and strongly support it. In previous debates, I have given the extent of public money that is committed to this line.
It might be for the convenience of the House if I briefly deal with two points that were debated by the House in July, before the summer recess, and have been touched on already by hon. Members. The first is the provision of stations at Southwark and Bermondsey, which has been a matter of particular concern to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I always have absolute admiration for the way in which he can produce so many penultimate points in any speech he makes. On 24 July, I told the House that it was the Government's policy that stations should be built at Southwark and


Bermondsey. I also said that further analytical work was to be carried out to confirm that the case for those stations was positive.
As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey has already expressed a wish to know, I am sure that the House will also want to know the outcome of that work. The appraisal showed that, on current costing, the economic case for the stations was positive and as strong as that for the line itself provided that, in Southwark's case, direct passenger access was provided between it and British Rail's Waterloo East station. That will entail additional cost of £8 million, which will not be provided out of the existing provision for the line, but will be from incremental funds provided by the Department of Transport.
Therefore, the Government are prepared to approve construction of both stations, provided that the cost of the project as a whole can be held within agreed cost limits. The hon. Gentleman asked me what was meant by that statement. I told him when he came to see me two days ago that nothing sinister was implied. The Government mean by that statement that, as with any project, if costs of the entire line—including but not specifically Southwark and Bermondsey stations—and of tunnelling and engineering work, begin to exceed the real terms provision made by the Government for the line's construction, the Government, any Government, would have to reconsider what parts of the line could be built—indeed, whether the line itself could be built—within the available funds.
My statement should not be taken to read that, simply because I am confirming Southwark and Bermondsey now, if there were problems in the financial provision for the line, those two stations would be the first parts to be dropped. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take that assurance in the spirit in which it is offered. Therefore, there is no question of London Transport or the Government seeking to withdraw provision for Southwark and Bermondsey stations from the Bill. I am mystified by the article in the Evening Standard—no further conditions have to be met with regard to the Treasury. The article was inaccurate.
Secondly, I gave the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) an assurance that the Government would give serious consideration to the recommendation of the New Building Sub-Committee that the concrete raft which will form the foundation for phase 2 of the new parliamentary building should be paid for in its entirety by the London Underground. But for this, the London Underground has already given all the undertakings sought of it, as acknowledged in the third report of the Services Committee. I said that I believed that that outstanding issue must be addressed in the autumn, and, I hoped, before any Select Committee considered the Bill.
I am therefore pleased to inform the House tonight that the Government are prepared for London Underground to undertake to provide and pay for a raft over the entire site if and when the funding for the phase 2 building has been approved. However, I am sure that the House will understand that, as that undertaking requires expenditure other than strictly required for the purposes of the railway, the Select Committee will have to consider whether additional express powers need to be given to the underground to enable it lawfully to give and discharge this undertaking.
It is only reasonable that that offer, made by the Government with the full concurrence, understanding and

agreement of London Underground, is conditional upon the building above the raft going ahead. I am sure that the hon. Member for Ogmore will see the logic behind that. We have tried to respond in a constructive and prompt fashion to his request.
I know that the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock), who may seek to speak in the debate, has raised with me the issue of access for disabled people and doubtless she will wish to return to the subject. London Underground is studying the issue of access to the Jubilee line extension by disabled people, and taking the matter seriously. I understand that it has decided that lifts should be provided to facilitate access to stations. It has appointed consultants to consider the implications and to evaluate the risks of allowing wheelchair users on the extension. But it must have paramount regard to its safety obligations for all passengers and staff, as well as to considerations of reasonable practicability and cost.
If the hon. Lady, whom I know is deeply and specifically interested in the subject, would like to pursue the subject with the Department of Transport alter tonight's debate, I should be happy to meet her and answer any specific questions through Parliament.
There are 95 petitions against the Bill, and it awaits examination by a Select Committee. It would be right that the Bill should be allowed to continue so that the House can reach a conclusion on the expediency of the Bill arid its detailed provisions. If the motion is carried, the House will have further opportunities to consider the arguments for and against the Bill.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey hoped that the Bill would attain Royal Assent by autumn next year. I hope that he is right. I share his sentiments, so that, with Royal Assent, but only after proper and detailed consideration of all the points that have been and will be raised, Londoners, particularly those in south-east London, in the docklands area and east London, will benefit from this major extension to London's underground.

11 pm

Ms. Joan Ruddock: As others have said, this is a technical carry-over motion. The Minister has clearly given his strong support to the extension of the Jubilee line and I regret that that forces me to take the time of the House to question whether the Government's commitment to London Underground is as strong as he suggests.
Today we have news of a leaked memo from the managing director of London Underground Ltd. to all the Underground managers which calls into question the Government's commitment to providing Londoners with an affordable, accessible and efficient underground system.
London Transport's business plan is now in disarray. It is heading for a loss of between £35 million and £40 million, and the leaked memo catalogues the stark reality of trying to run an underground system within the straitjacket of Government financial constraints. It calls into question future capital programmes.
Members are here tonight debating the carry-over motion and, if it is successful and the Bill goes to Committee, other hon. Members may spend up to 12 months debating its merits. But we cannot be wholly confident of the future extension of the line and of London Underground.
On Monday, I tackled the Secretary of State about the £40 million loss. In his facetious reply, he gave no acknowledgement of the difficulties that have been outlined in today's memo. Many of the directives in the memo are relevant to tonight's consideration of the carry-over motion. On capital projects, it says:
Projects approved but not committed to contract will not go ahead in this financial year. All projects under way will be assessed to determine savings.
On staffing, it says:
Reductions in overtime and recruitment are required." The consequences of that are outlined in the memo as unplanned closures of stations and station booking halls and restrictions and reductions in services.
We are told that the Victoria line will continue to be six trains short for the rest of this financial year. The Jubilee line is to be three trains short for the rest of this financial year. Station cleaning is to be reduced and there is to be a reduction in engineering. When the London public appreciate that those engineers whose time is to be reduced are those dealing with signals, they will be only to conscious of what that means to the delivery of services. More trains will be stuck in tunnels for longer.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I have to be careful not to allow this to turn into a general debate on London Underground, and I hope that the hon. Lady will now direct her remarks more directly to the motion before the House.

Ms. Ruddock: I am conscious of what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I have limited my remarks. There is much more that I could say on the issue, but I do believe that, in considering a major investment of this kind, and debating a motion about continuing with it, we should feel some confidence about the Government's commitment to extending the underground system, yet they are already failing to fund it appropriately.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: My hon. Friend's remarks are relevant because, if the Government's commitment and that of London Regional Transport is to the completion of the line as outlined in the Bill, is there not likely to be a knock-on effect—or knock-back effect—in many of the operating areas that my hon. Friend outlined—unless, of course, the report to which she referred is a fabrication? Also, obtaining powers to construct a line places no obligation on the promoters to complete it. The Thames or so-called River line was abandoned, so if it was necessary to keep within financial constraints, the promoters might construct a line from Green park to Canary wharf and then take it no further.

Ms. Ruddock: My hon. Friend makes his case admirably. There can be no doubt that the report, which we believe to be utterly authentic, undermines our confidence in the Government's support for London Underground Ltd.
Despite that report and the gloomy prospects of continuing misery for those who use the existing tube lines, we will support the carry-over motion—not least because we expect a change of Government before construction of the new line begins, and thus a change of attitude towards public transport as a whole.

Mr. Freeman: I remind the House that, under this Government, investment in London Underground is some two and half times greater than it was under the stewardship of the Greater London council. The hon. Lady can confirm that, in giving consent to the depositing of the Jubilee Bill and indicating their strong support for its principles, it follows that financial provision has been made for the entire line. It is not a matter of approving the project in principle and not providing the necessary resources to make it happen.

Ms. Ruddock: The Minister may give that assurance, but, despite the approval that he and the House gave London Transport's business plan, we all know that its budgets and financial targets are so severely awry that measures of the kind that I have outlined must be taken. That will mean a reduction in what are already poor services to Londoners.

Mr. John Bowis: I have seen the report to which the hon. Lady referred, but I do not think that it was necessarily leaked; rather, I believe that it is generally circulating. That report is a criticism not of the Government's commitment to London Underground but of some of the management's operating practices, and is also partly the consequence of less being realised from assets such as land than London Underground anticipated. The hon. Lady should also make it clear that entirely exempt from those proposals is anything to do with safety. Clearly, expenditure on safety aspects will go ahead.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is both taking too long and going wide of the motion. I said earlier that this is not the occasion for a general debate about London Underground.

Ms. Ruddock: The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) claims that safety expenditure will be safeguarded, but morale is being deeply eroded, and that contributes to the level of safety and care provided by managers and staff. The report reflects nothing less than a very serious situation.
Inevitably, the Government's response to the needs of London's travelling public has been piecemeal. The extension of the Jubilee line is among those piecemeal measures, albeit an expensive one, in that every authority in London—including the Conservative-controlled London Boroughs Association—has repeatedly requested a strategic plan.
The extension of the Jubilee line should of course be part of an overall plan for the whole of the capital, one which is necessary if we are not to end up in a state of terminal paralysis. But as the Government persist in this approach, it is our duty as an Opposition to try to get the best possible result from any proposals that come before us.
Many reservations and questions were raised on Second Reading. I am happy to acknowledge that some of the problems have been satisfactorily resolved. Most importantly, the case for new stations in Bermondsey and Southwark has been accepted. As a south London Member, I am acutely aware of the inadequacies of public transport south of the river and of the sterling efforts made by the boroughs of Southwark and Lewisham in lobbying London Transport for new infrastructure.
I very much welcome the commitment given by the Minister in answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I remind the Minister, however, of the view strongly held by me, my colleagues in south London and the boroughs of Lewisham and Greenwich, that the proposed extension to the Docklands light railway must be an essential part of any planned increase in public transport south of the river. I hope that he will allow a Bill to be deposited on that, too, in November.
Will the Minister confirm what has been said by the sponsor of the Bill tonight—that the line and the alignment through the Greenwich peninsula is certain, and that talk of reconsideration is not warranted? Will he also confirm that a route to the royals is being safeguarded in case it is subsequently possible to extend the line further?
Finally, as the Minister said, on Second Reading I expressed our acute disappointment at London Underground's apparent unwillingness to make the new section of line fully wheelchair-accessible. I acknowledge what the Minister has said tonight about the assurances that there will be lifts and stations, and that further consideration is being given to making the line fully wheelchair-accessible. I shall certainly take up his offer to meet him and to pursue that point, because we believe that all extensions of lines and all new underground lines should indeed be fully accessible to people with disabilities.
Despite these objections and the reservations that we still have, we are happy to give support to the carry-over motion. We hope that in Committee the further problems will be satisfactorily resolved.

Mr. Ray Powell: I shall not delay the House unduly at this late hour. I have no wish to repeat the arguments put to the Government and the House on July 12 and 24, because on those occasions the members of the New Building Sub-Committee made their objections known forcefully, and the Government have responded as the Committee would have expected.
I refer first to the report by the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) on the new parliamentary building phase 2 and the Jubilee line proposals that we debated some time ago. Paragraph 44 described the undertakings that the Committee requested from London Underground as follows:
"(i) that London Underground should agree to implement Option F, and that all costs incurred as part of the London Underground works in connection with Option F should be borne by London Underground itself;
(ii) that London Underground should agree to pay for the concrete raft; and
(iii) that London Underground should accept all the recommendations aimed at minimising environmental impact put forward by the independent consultants in the Environmental Impact Assessment inasmuch as they relate to Westminster Station and Parliament Square."
I shall concentrate on the last paragraph.
I was pleased by what the Minister said about the raft. I understand, as I am sure that all members of the New Building Sub-Committee will understand, that before any concrete proposals are made by the Government or London Underground for payment for the raft that is to be built there will have to be guaranteed funding for the building to be erected above the raft.
There could be a change in Government before the final decision is made. I am sure that after the work that has been put in by my Committee no Government would attempt to stop the development, which is well overdue. If the public could see the conditions in which some hon. Members, who represent up to 80,000 constituents, have to work, they would be horrified. Some hon. Members have to work six or seven to a room. They have to do a tremendous amount of work in a confined space—for example, in the Cloisters. If an outside firm made its staff work in such conditions, it would be breaking the law, but the law does not apply to the Palace of Westminster, so hon. Members have to tolerate deplorable conditions brought about because Governments have not been prepared to pay to provide proper accommodation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) spoke about county hall, which is only five minutes walk away and has massive committee rooms, plenty of office accommodation for staff, secretaries and even Ministers. Whatever Government we have over the next couple of years, whether the present Government or an incoming Labour Government, should look closely at what should be done with county hall. It should be taken over to provide reasonable accommodation for hon. Members. One of the main reasons why I was prepared to take the Chair of the New Building Sub-Committee was my interest in accommodation and my concern at the fact that hon. Members have not had the necessary standard of accommodation.
This is all relevant to the extension of the Jubilee line, because had it not been for this development by London Underground, phase 2 of the new parliamentary building would be well advanced. In all probability, plans would have been accepted, Government finance would have been granted, and we should have been in the process of building phase 2. Many interests and organisations are demanding accommodation. Women Members of Parliament are asking for creches and child care facilities, other Members would like a gymnasium, a swimming pool or squash courts, but the main priority of every Member of Parliament is office accommodation.
I pay tribute to the hard work put in by the members of the New Building Sub-Committee on the development of phase 1 and the planning and discussion of phase 2. I am grateful for the remarks made by the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn) on this. I assure the House that all members of the Committee have unanimously supported the Committee's decisions in discussions with the Minister and other bodies so as to ensure that phase 1 is completed.
The report states that Members of Parliament will soon have accommodation in phase 1. I believe that the Minister has been persuaded to accept one of the three proposals regarding the building and financing of the raft by London Underground because of the persuasiveness of the Opposition Deputy Chief Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon), who is a member of the Committee and has continually argued for that proposal.
I am glad that the Opposition Front Bench supports the carry-over motion. The sooner the Bill leaves its Committee stage, the sooner we shall be able to appoint architects to design phase 2 which will provide additional accommodation for Members.
I hope that, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Minister will be able to reply to a point that I wish to put to him. I am worried about access to the House of


Commons because of the new development in Parliament square. I hope that the Minister will say something about the proposals presented to him on 12 and 24 July regarding Parliament square. Traffic will be disrupted for about six years. It cannot be right and proper for traffic to be disrupted for such a long period. It is an environmental issue.
As time is short, I intend to bring my remarks to a close. I hope, however, that the Minister will be allowed to speak again.

Mr. Freeman: I am sure that I shall not have a chance to catch your eye again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to make a substantive contribution, but by way of an intervention may I point out that it is not for me, as a Transport Minister, to comment on specific details. That is a task for the Select Committee. However, I understand the concern about Parliament square. After the Select Committee has carefully considered the proposals for the boarding up of Parliament square, the Department will work closely with London Underground and London Regional Transport to ensure that the disruption is minimised. However, the answers to the hon. Gentleman's questions must be provided by the promoters when the Select Committee considers the Bill.

Mr. Powell: I am grateful to the Minister. Those appointed to serve on the Bill will read his remarks and ensure that hon. Members, through the Serjeant at Arms, have access to the House. I can imagine how much disruption would be caused if the road were raised. I am sure that all hon. Members would be glad of an assurance from the Minister that he, as well as the Select Committee, will bear the matter in mind. I am sure that the members of the New Building Sub-Committee will be looking to ensure that the observations that they have made in their reports are well and truly observed.

Mr. Ron Leighton: Some generous tributes have been paid to the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) and his eloquence. I happily join in them. However, I must enter one small caveat. He suggested in his opening remarks that there was no need for any discussion this evening. I do not agree. There are many matters that should be ventilated, especially because of the entirely unsatisfactory private Bill procedure under which these matters are dealt with. This is one of the few opportunities for ordinary Members of Parliament to have a say in what we all understand to be an important matter.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I should like to make it clear that, whatever the hon. Gentleman may have understood from my remarks, I welcome the debate. The points being put forward are serious and need to be considered. I am listening to them and I know that the promoters are listening and will take account of all the points made by hon. Members.

Mr. Leighton: I am pleased to hear that.
I received in my mail today—as I am sure did other hon. Members—a statement on behalf of the promoters in support of the carry-over motion. It says that since the Bill was deposited last November, London Regional Transport has been given leave to proceed with an

"additional provision" which would alter the Bill's proposals in three ways. The first is changes to the station arrangements at Westminster, the second is a change at London Bridge station and the third is an alteration in the route. I draw attention to that alteration in the route which will take the line by way of the Blackwall peninsula at Greenwich. That is a major change taking the line from the north side to the south side of the river. Presumably the people on the north side of the river have an opinion about that. People undertook development there and some development is in prospect on the understanding that the Jubilee line was going to run there. Now, all of a sudden, it has been snatched away. What consultation was there with interests north of the river?
I am pleased that the statement from the promoters also refers to the instruction we gave on Second Reading on the need for the regeneration of local communities and industries. Of course, there are no local communities or industries on the Greenwich peninsula.
The change concerning what happens to the line when it leaves Canary wharf is a major one and I have heard no proper explanation for it. The additional provisions for the Bill lodged by the promoters will take the route from Canary wharf under the Thames into the Greenwich peninsula, where a new station is proposed. From that station, the proposed route again crosses under the Thames and goes up to Stratford. Some questions should be asked about that and I hope that we can hear some sensible comments tonight.
Cost is not irrelevant or unimportant. We heard what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) about the information that she received recently. We have heard the Minister's references to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). He had an assurance that he would get his stations only if there was enough money. It was not a cast-iron or, to vary the metaphor, copper-bottomed guarantee. In view of what my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford said, if it will cost much more to tunnel under the Thames twice perhaps the guarantees given to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey are not quite so firm.
The route will be considerably longer than originally proposed. Not only will that be much more expensive, but two additional Thames crossings will have to be tunnelled, perhaps in difficult conditions. I do not know what expert opinion we have on how difficult it will be to do that tunnelling, but I should like to know what it will cost and who will pay. Is there any cost to the taxpayer, or will it be paid for by private interests? Parliament wants answers to those questions.
The railway is being paid for very oddly, with subventions from developers and I think that British Gas put up some money. The private Bill procedure for the expenditure of vast sums of public money is unsatisfactory. I ask these questions to see whether we can get some answers.
British Urban Development was set up from II major firms in the construction industry. Its purpose was to carry out redevelopment in the inner cities. The Prime Minister, in particular, looked very kindly on it and it was created virtually with her patronage. It was going to do great work in the inner cities, but unfortunately it is being scaled down because of dwindling Government support, the recession and the downturn in the property market. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) mentioned county


hall. I think that that- group was to develop county hall but has now gone bankrupt. As there is so much risk in this line of business but insufficient incentives for firms, they are contracting out of this development.
British Urban Development and British Gas are still paying at least lip service to the development at the Greenwich peninsula. A proposal has been made to develop housing and some small industry. I want to know a bit more about that and how firm it is. I hope that I am not being too insensitive if I say that many of the 11 firms are well known for contributing to the Conservative party. They certainly have much clout and have been able to change the route and take the line under the Thames twice to that site. I think that British Gas has offered £25 million. Is that why the development is being proposed? If we pass the motion, the Select Committee that will consider this will want to ask whether £25 million was available from people on the other side of the river. Is the route of the line to be decided by some sort of auction, with developers offering different sums of money?
We want to know whether the developers of the Greenwich peninsula will deliver. What guarantees are there that they will? My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and I heard much talk about development in the royal docks. The area was taken out of the the control of the local authorities and put under the control of the London Docklands development corporation—an allegedly dynamic body that was supposed to develop the area. That was 11 years ago, and not a single brick has been laid. If that project has failed, what guarantees are there in respect of the Greenwich peninsula? Is the development viable, and is it fundable, bearing in mind the fact that we are talking about a derelict contaminated gasworks site. Are we sure that the development will take place?
The original route through the Leamouth area on the northern side was decided because of the support that it would give to the regeneration of docklands. It forms a vital part of the transport infrastructure planned by the LDDC for the area. I have not heard the LDDC say anything about the matter. What is the development corporation's view? Or is it inhibited because the Government are its paymasters? Perhaps it is not allowed to have a view. Many of those who have spoken to me believe that the reason for the original decision—which the promoters now want to alter—to run the tracks of the Jubilee line through the Leamouth area, supporting the regeneration of docklands and the east side of London, was sound, and that it constituted a vital element in the success of the regeneration.
Let us consider the development in the Leamouth area and the vast number of people who will be working there. If the Jubilee line does not run through the area, other forms of public transport will be needed, because the private motor car will not be sufficient to move the staff around. The docklands light railway will not be enough; we all know that. Presumably, therefore, those people will be transported by bus, and that will clog up the roads.
Transport will also be needed on the Greenwich peninsula. I have heard a number of ideas about what could be done there, one of which involved the provision of a light railway, linking Westcombe park British Rail line with the peninsula. The DLR should also be extended from Island Gardens on the Isle of Dogs, via Greenwich, to Lewisham.
In Newham, we want the royal docks to be developed. Ah! I see the Minister for Industry standing at the Bar of the House, wearing a white tie. I have half a mind to order a cup of coffee from the hon. Gentleman, but perhaps that would not be appropriate.

The Minister for Industry (Mr. Douglas Hogg): With pleasure, Sir.

Mr. Leighton: Two sugars, please. The service in this place is wonderful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the hon. Gentleman's dress is a splendid example of the sort of uniform that might attract foreign visitors to county hall if ever it were developed as a hotel.
In Newham, we want the Jubilee line extended to the royal docks. That will cost a lot of money, and I have asked about this because I want to know whether the money will be available. Two years ago, we were told that the route would be safeguarded. But as far as I know, after two years of talk, nothing has been done to safeguard it. When will that route be safeguarded?
The step plate junction is a subject close to the heart of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South. It is the facility that will be necessary to extend the Jubilee line to the royal docks. There are a number of question marks hanging over the project's technical feasibility and the availability of funds. Is the money available—if not, when will it be available—for the step plate junction?
May we have an assurance that the engineering works will be committed? I am advised that they cannot be carried out once the trains are running; I may be wrong, but I should like to be reassured about the junction. On the original route, the junction would have a gentle 45-degree curve, which could be accommodated. The other proposed route—coming up from the south, from the Greenwich peninsula—would, however, involve a 135-degree curve. I am advised by some people that that would be impossible to implement.
When the Jubilee line is extended, which I hope that it will be in the future—perhaps under another Government—it will, ideally, cross the river at north Woolwich and go to Thamesmead.
I have, I trust, raised one or two legitimate questions. They are difficult to deal with under the private Bill procedure, but I hope nevertheless to receive some clear and specific answers.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: On Second Reading, I gave the Bill qualified support. I therefore of necessity, support tonight's motion.
When I questioned my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) about the will to complete, the Minister gave me an assurance for which I thank him. Perhaps my thought was a little unworthy—in relation to trains stopping only at Canary wharf, that is—but, as the Minister knows, the promoters are not obliged to complete any works for which an Act is provided. In any event, the Minister has cleared the matter up by giving me a Government assurance that the necessary funds will be available.
This is the season of carry-over motions, and we have some congestion on the private Bill railway. Comments have been made about private Bill procedure, which I think are best dealt with by way of example. We all know that the major delay is caused by a clash between national


energy policy and the little matter of 50,000 miners' jobs. That, of course, is part of the reason for our being here, night after night, until rather late, but I shall not deal with that now.
What I do wish to discuss, however, is an alternative procedure which might make a carry-over motion unnecessary in this instance. It has been suggested that railway Bills should be treated like proposals relating to motorways and referred to a public inquiry. Judging from the detailed comments about open spaces that we heard earlier, some hon. Members may consider that a good idea. What I favour, however, is an examination by a Joint Committee of both Houses—preferably before Second Reading—which would assure itself that any appropriate preliminary steps had been taken before a private Bill came to the House. Had such a procedure been adopted earlier, private legislation involving the channel tunnel, King's Cross and, indeed, the matters that we are discussing now would in my view have been dealt with much more expeditiously.
I am opposed to leaving the final decision with the Secretary of State rather than the House. The issues raised by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), for instance, should not be dealt with by means of an ordinary planning inquiry, in which event the decision would lie with the Minister; here, it lies with the House, and with a Committee appointed by the House to look into the merits of the case. I think that that system should be retained—albeit with some form of ring fencing outside—to ensure that all the preliminary procedures, including consultation with landowners and boroughs, have been undertaken before Second Reading.
I wish to emphasise the importance of three broad issues which were dealt with on Second Reading. The regeneration of docklands and the lower Lee valley has been mentioned by many hon. Members. Inquiries have been made about the security of the step plate junction, and I am puzzled how the matter has arisen. The junction consists of concentric expanding rings in the tunnel—it was the design for the tunnel under the Thames, or near it, on the north bank in Canning Town and it was always in the plan. I understand that the design has been incorporated in the variation order, and I see that there are signs of agreement with that in the Chamber. A typical rumour has circulated and it is right that inquiries have been made, but there may be some misapprehension about the safeguarding of the route. As I understand it, that safeguarding will lie in the junction, which can be constructed only prior to the initiation of trains. The scheme will permit a branch through the royal docks, should that be found necessary in future, and that makes sense. Had there been sufficient and proper time to take the line over an existing or proposed bridge, or through a tunnel, into Thamesmead or Woolwich, that would have been a good strategic planning stroke to come from a future Bill.
I referred on Second Reading to the Westminster/ Charing cross problem, and I mention it again for the consideration of the Select Committee. Should the interchange with the District line be at St. James's park as the Committee wanted, at Westminster where the promoters want it, or at Temple which I have suggested as an alternative? If the interchange were at Temple, there

would be the facility of continuing with the present route via Charing cross or Trafalgar square, which are relatively near.
The curve of the line—curves have been mentioned in respect of Canning Town—at Green park would need to be transposed to a curve through Temple, or there would have to be a similar one. I am not convinced that that could be achieved. I have no doubt that the Committee will consider the matter, and I hope that the promoters will be preparing a variation order—they will if they are wise—in the event that the Committee finds that there is a better way of serving the general needs of London and getting rid of all the problems at Parliament square.
I make no apology for raising the subject of regeneration again. It is an example of the value of the parliamentary Bill procedure as a long-stop for anything that may come earlier. On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) talked about one of his constituents, a Mr. Downey, who has a business in my constituency. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman, who represents one of the Buckhurst Hill areas, devoted his speech to the just needs of Mr. Downey and his business. Mr. Downey owns a small engineering business by a filling station in Canning Town. It is one of the remnant industries of east London, and stems directly from the shipbuilding and ship-repairing tradition which, alas, is all but extinct in the area now. I believe that in 1906 a Dreadnought was built on the site close to where Mr. Downey has his workshops.
Compensation is causing some difficulty. I pay tribute to the work of some of the officials, some of whom may even be listening to what I have to say, in trying to find Mr. Downey alternative accommodation. The fact that he has two disparate businesses may make their job difficult. I understand, however, that it will be difficult for Mr. Downey even to continue with his engineering business, which has a relatively full order book. That is something which I believe the House will not tolerate. Will the Committee tolerate it, bearing in mind the instruction that the House has already issued?
Mr. Downey is a gentleman of private enterprise. He is engaged in a business that would gladden the hearts of Conservative Members and one of which I approve because it is concerned with engineering and tangible things. It leads to items being made that people want, and it is conducted on good private enterprise lines which Conservative Members constantly applaud.
The private Bill procedure is meant to ensure that people get proper compensation. Because of the importance of regeneration, the LDDC and the instruction, such people should be permitted and enabled to carry on their productive businesses. My constituents should be enabled to continue their employment in a traditional east London industry and, if necessary, to carry out training and have apprentices so that if demand for Mr. Downey's fabrications increases, his industry can continue to meet it. At the moment, however, there is no guarantee of that.
I have been invited to be involved in the search for a solution but, as both myself—the Member representing the constituency in which the business is located—and the hon. Member representing Mr. Downey's constituency, who is present in the Chamber today, have pointed out, hon. Members should not have to spend any more time on mediation. I am glad and proud that Parliament can consider the fate of individual businesses and, in the


traditional phrase, "the details of Mrs. Smith's pension" on the Adjournment. That is absolutely right and cases such as this are why we want to retain the private Bill procedure. However, once the House has given an instruction, and once the idea of proper compensation, enshrined for centuries, is embedded in the legislation, I believe that the promoters and others concerned should be enabled to get on with it.
I conclude where I began, considering the value of at least part of the private Bill procedure for railways. We can see what is happening at the moment with the procedure for roads. Not very far from the end of the Jubilee line at Oxleas Wood, the former Secretary of State for the Environment approved a road and not a tunnel. We are talking about a tunnel for a railway. At a stroke of his pen—in perhaps just 15 seconds' work—the Secretary of State ruled that the inspectors' report on Oxleas Wood would be completely disregarded and decided that there should not be a tunnel there. No Secretary of State in the future—I do not care what party he belongs to—or future Administration in 20, 30 or 50 years' time should be given such a power in relation to tunnels for railways.
That is why I end where I began. Although we want the private Bill procedure to be improved, I believe that the case of Mr. Downey and the former Secretary of State's decision over Oxleas Wood prove that we should only modify our procedures and not hand the power of the House and its Committees to some personage who will be seated at a desk opposite the House in Whitehall.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: With the permission of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall seek to answer some of the important points that have been made, and to do so as briefly as possible. The promoters are extremely grateful for all the points that have been made, and careful note has been made of the important views expressed by those hon. Members who represent constituencies that will be affected by the line.
I shall not go into all the arguments that have been made about procedure, especially the private Bill procedure, because that is a complicated matter that is outside the scope of this debate.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) referred to the problem with Jubilee gardens. I well understand the point that she is making on behalf of her constituents. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) also made the point that Jubilee gardens is the only green space in the area and that there will be enormous problems if building has to be carried out there. However, as the hon. Lady also said, she and the people she represents are not against the line. She knows that, if the line is built, there will have to be some digging. She and the promoters are at one in seeking to have the building site located on the car park if possible. I shall not stray into the political areas of discussing how possible that may or may not be or should or should not be. Nevertheless, they are at one and LUL will be seeking to locate the building site on the car park.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn) hit the nail on the head in many regards, but especially when he said that improvements for hon. Members, and the new building that everyone desires, are in danger if the motion is not passed. That is the context

in which we should put both his remarks and the valuable speech about the new building of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell).
I was tempted by the hon. Member for Ogmore when he talked about the prospect that county hall could be used for offices. I used to have an office in county hall which was about the same size as that enjoyed by the Prime Minister at the back of the Chair in this building. If it meant that I could have that office back, I should be in favour of moving into county hall.

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: Until there was a Division.

Mr. Hughes: Until there was a Division, as my hon. Friend says.
The Committee of the hon. Member for Ogmore has made a valuable contribution on the new building and the traffic in Parliament square. It is fair to say that the close working relationship that has built up between the PSA and London Underground has ironed out many of the problems that were raised by the hon. Member for Ogmore on Second Reading. Of course, problems remain to be ironed out, but I hope that the promoters will examine the problems outlined by the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members today and that further improvements can be made before the building work starts.
I thank the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey for his kind words. He talked about the cost of the project. He asked whether the stations were linked to the project or to the cost of the project. The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) also made that point. It is clear from everything that I have read and from what my hon. Friend the Minister said that the stations of Southwark and Bermondsey are linked to the project going ahead. There is not much point in having the stations if one does not have the line. There is no suggestion that the line would go ahead without the stations. That is important. I think that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey was satisfied on that point.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey also said that the line should serve communities and help to regenerate them. He said that it should not be merely for commuting into the rest of London. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) also made that point. That objective is clear, as I said in my introduction to the debate.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) made a speech that was interesting but not necessarily germane to a carry-over motion. I take to heart her point about wheelchair accessibility, and I hope that the promoters take it to heart too. We must work towards making people in wheelchairs real members of our society, with the rights that they deserve. We need to do some work on that. That was not in my brief, but I thought that I would say it.

Ms. Ruddock: I remind the hon. Gentleman that I also requested an assurance on safeguarding a route to the royals. Will he come to that point?

Mr. Hughes: I was coming to that specific point.
As the hon. Member for Newham, South said—in a sense in response to his hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East—the safeguard for the route to the royals is the fact that the step plates are integral to the


building of the line. That has been clearly stated by the promoters. Without the step plates, the new line cannot be built to the royals. That is the guarantee. Guaranteeing the specific route is a matter for the Government, and no doubt that will have to be pursued. However, it may not need to be pursued because the step plates are guaranteed.
The case of Mr. Downey was raised by the hon. Member for Newham, South. There has been some correspondence——

Mr. Leighton: I am counting the hon. Gentleman's remarks and wondering whether he is responding in order in which the speeches were made. After replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) he leapt over me to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). Does he intend to come back to me by some sort of step plate? How is he arranging his speech?

Mr. Hughes: Rather like the pudding after the meal, I am saving my reply to the hon. Gentleman until last.
There has been correspondence between London Underground and my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) on Mr. Downey. The local authority and LUL are doing everything possible to find a new site. I know that my hon. Friend will not let Mr. Downey's case go by default and he will ensure that his constituent is satisfied before the Bill proceeds to the statute book.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-East asked the important question about whether the line should go north or south of the river. The east London rail study identified two possible alignments between Canary wharf and Canning Town—via either the Greenwich peninsula or the Brunswick foreshore. The pressure of the November deadline on LRT to deposit a Bill last year made it necessary for it to reach a decision to plan on the basis of the shorter and cheaper alignment via Brunswick. The Bill was deposited on that basis.
Subsequently further discussions were held with property developers and landowners, whose interests would be affected by both alignments, to ascertain whether they would be prepared to meet the additional costs of providing a station and changing the route as necessary. Each of the interested groups offered to contribute, but the financial case for proceeding with the Greenwich alignment is more robust and offers additional benefits as it opens up the area to public transport.
In contrast, Brunswick will be effectively served by the Beckton extension of the docklands light railway. Accordingly, the Government authorised the deposit of an additional provision to change the alignment to go via Greenwich—LRT is committed to promoting the Bill as amended by that additional provision. LRT is convinced that the better route in terms of maximum use by passengers is that via the Greenwich peninsula. That decision, however, in common with many other matters that we have discussed, should be discussed in Committee.
Without the motion, there will be no line, at least for the foreseeable future. If we approve the motion, we shall get the line that Londoners desperately need.

Mr. Leighton: Am I right to understand that there was some kind of auction and discussions with property developers and landowners and that sums of money were

offered? I believe that the hon. Gentleman said that the case for one route was more robust than that for the other. I do not know what that means.
We already know that, in the long term, the docklands light railway will not be adequate for the traffic it must carry. The Committee should point the spotlight on this matter and examine it most carefully. It should discover how much the various offers were worth. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman can tell us the answer, because, as he said earlier, that might not be in his brief. Does he know what was offered by whom?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Briefly, please

Mr. Leighton: Perhaps we cannot deal with the matter here because of unsatisfactory procedures, but it is something that must be dealt with.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) might reply.

Mr. Hughes: The crux of the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Newham, North-East is that this matter should be discussed in Committee.
On Second Reading, people asked why this particular route had been chosen, given the announcement about the east-west route. The answer lies in cost-benefit analysis. LRT believes that that analysis proves that the Greenwich peninsula is a better route than the other, which happens to be cheaper. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Committee should discuss the matter.
Without the carry-over motion, the Committee cannot discuss any matter, and London will be deprived of a desperately needed railway.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the London Underground Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

Ordered,
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;

Ordered,
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;

Ordered,
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);

Ordered,
That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;

Ordered,
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;

Ordered,


That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted:

Ordered,
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

Central and Eastern Europe (EC Aid)

The Minister of State, Foreign and CommonwealIth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7720/90, relating to the extension of the provisions of Council regulation No. 3906/89 to Czechoslovakia, GDR, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and Romania; and supports the Government's view that the provision of co-ordinated economic aid to those countries by the European Community will promote economic and political reform in those countries and foster a closer relationship with the Community.
Last Friday the House debated the EC consequences of German unity. Although that debate was not without its complexity—no less than 26 pieces of draft EC legislation lay on the Table for the House's consideration—it was lubricated by the fact that the former German Democratic Republic is acceding immediately to the Community as a part of the Federal Republic. The considerable costs of bringing the GDR up to the standards of the Community will be largely met by the Federal Republic of Germany. Even though substantial social and economic strains will result, they will undoubtedly be eased by the wealth of western Germany and its commitment to the cause of German unity. No such sponsor exists for the other newly emerged democracies of eastern Europe, and they will need our support both bilaterally and through the Community.
For Conservative Members and the majority of Opposition Members, the return of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria and, we hope eventually, Romania to democracy and free enterprise is a matter for unalloyed rejoicing. For some Opposition Members the matter is not so clear cut.
Last Friday the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) leapt to the defence of the Trabant motor car—an heroic act that 18 million former East Germans are no longer prepared to perform. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) even praised the full employment policies of the GDR. At one stage I was surprised that none of the Members who sit below the Gangway rose to praise the policies of law and order that used to pertain under Herr Honecker.
The regulation which we are debating this evening gives effect to the extension of the Community's aid to the other countries of central and eastern Europe in addition to the original recipients, Poland and Hungary. I was grateful for the Scrutiny Committee's agreement that our acceptance of the Commission's proposal did not need to await its deliberations. By agreeing to this regulation in July the Government were able to send a positive signal about their commitment to supporting political and economic reform in eastern Europe.
I should like to outline first the criteria used by the Community in deciding to which countries to give aid. Secondly, I shall touch on the range of measures that have so far been taken. Thirdly, I shall consider some of the projects that have been financed by EC funds. Finally, I shall comment on the future of EC relations with eastern and central Europe.
I shall begin with the criteria. The Community's aid policy is based on an assessment of each country's progress in implementing political and economic reform. We measure that commitment according to five criteria: the


establishment of a market economy; a pluralist democracy; free and fair elections; the recognition of human rights; and the rule of law. The freedom of the media is a further barometer of the extent of political liberty in any country.
We retain, alas, some doubts about Romania's commitment to democracy following the unhappy events of June this year. Romania, although covered by the regulation, will receive EC economic aid only when Ministers are satisfied that the above criteria have been met. We look forward to its early inclusion.
The programme of aid available to Poland and Hungary developed at the end of last year comprised four basic elements—measures to boost trade with the Community, lending facilities, project aid for spending in the priority areas of environment, agriculture, training and industry, and food aid where that was required.
A further important role will be performed by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development which we hope will begin operations in the spring from its London headquarters.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: What will happen after 1 January when non-transferable roubles become difficult and have to give way to hard dollars? That will hit countries such as Poland and Bulgaria extremely hard. Will the bank do something about that?

Mr. Garel-Jones: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that eastern Europe faces problems in financial management, accountancy and so on. Through our know-how fund and the TEMPUS programmes of the Community we shall be attempting, through conferences, seminars and direct advice, to give assistance to eastern Europe on the many problems that will arise from moving rather abruptly from a command economy to a market economy.
The EC's aid measures are being extended on a case-by-case basis to Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and Romania, although I stress again that no disbursements will be made to Romania until she has met the requirements that I outlined to the House in my earlier remarks.

Mr. John Bowis: Does my hon. Friend intend to refer to Yugoslavia and the abuses of human rights there? It is hardly moving towards a free and fair democratic system, particularly in the Kosovo region. Will he also define Yugoslavia should Slovenia and others begin to break away and form their own nations?

Mr. Garel-Jones: I am sure that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not attempt this evening to define Yugoslavia—a matter which is causing some difficulty even for Yugoslays. I agree that Yugoslavia has some way to go before it attains the criteria that I have just outlined.
In particular the PHARE—Poland Hungary aid for reconstruction of the economy—regulation now covers all the above countries for project aid, although, as I have just explained, there are no disbursements yet for Romania.
The original budget for 1990 of 300 million ecu, which is about £210 million, was extended to 500 million ecu, or £350 million, for all six countries, and 850 million ecu, or £595 million, has been earmarked for 1991. It might be helpful if I highlighted some of the projects implemented

using that money. Some 25 million ecu, or about £18 million, has gone to the TEMPUS student mobility scheme for the current academic year. That programme will bring about 600 students from Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia to EC universities.
The United Kingdom has proved to be a particularly attractive destination for TEMPUS students, and we expect approximately 200 to arrive in this country this autumn. We have made a significant contribution to the improvement of Polish agriculture, to help Poland feed itself this winter. Environmental aid has accounted for some 20 per cent. of the overall budget, with further amounts going to small businesses and the improvement of statistics.
Finally, I come to the perspectives for the future. The priority areas for 1991 will remain the same as for the first year of the PHARE programme. We asked the Commission to provide a detailed indicative breakdown by country and sector of the likely expenditure pattern, but that is not yet available. In the meantime, the Commission is making rapid progress on the relationship that we hope will develop between the Community and eastern European countries in the coming years.

Mr. Dalyell: When does the Foreign Office expect the report of the OECD combined with the World bank and the European bank on which some British academics, such as Professor Sir Paul Hare of Heriot-Watt university, are presently working?

Mr. Garel-Jones: I cannot answer that question immediately, but the report will have a significant bearing on the subsequent action taken by the Community and others. I may return to that point when I wind up, if I am fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Association agreements with Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia which the British Government proposed at the Strasbourg European Council in December 1989 could be in operation as early as 1 January 1992. They are likely to contain provisions for economic assistance, which will need to be closely co-ordinated with the priorities of the PHARE programme.
All the countries that we are discussing this evening have shown moral and on occasions even physical courage in opting for democracy and the market. However, we know—and they know, too—that they will need another kind of courage to meet the challenges of the market place. There will certainly be redundancies, and shortages, too. There will be failures, which will be reflected in a free press.
The Community programmes of which the House is taking note tonight will help to meet those challenges, but the bottom line in the market economy is, and will remain, the individual and collective effort of the people themselves. We have no doubt that the peoples of eastern Europe will show the same courage in rising to those challenges as they have shown in gaining their freedom.

Mr. George Robertson: I go along with much of the Minister's peroration, because we all have expectations of the bravery and initiative already shown by the peoples of eastern and central Europe, which have allowed them to triumph over the corrupt dictatorships that they overwhelmed and will be directed now at the enormous economic problems which confront them.
Nevertheless, brave words and rhetoric from the Minister at the Dispatch Box will not open the doors that those peoples need to open now. The debate is the starting point for a much wider one on how the West—the European Community, Britain and other countries—can unite in creating the climate of optimism that will allow eastern and central Europe to overcome the short-term problems that are a consequence of rising oil prices caused by the Gulf crisis and the unique difficulties inherent in moving from command to mixed economies.
The documents before the House concern the technical nature of expanding Community help through various programmes that the Minister outlined, and we endorse the position that the Government and the Community have adopted in that respect. Later, my hon. Friends will, if they catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, comment on particular aspects of those programmes.
I want to comment generally on the problems facing the countries of eastern and central Europe and to relate them to our own efforts, so that we may view them alongside those being made on a multilateral basis by the Community as a whole.
We wholeheartedly agree with the Government's public statements and actions in the Community, in emphasising that there is no sense in throwing money at the immensely complex problems of economic restructuring. There can certainly be no question of adding to the debt problems of eastern Europe in the way that has happened in Africa and south and central America, which has exacerbated those countries' difficulties. A debt mountain is no way for a country to get out of its problems.
If the assistance that we provide is to be of long-term benefit, it must be targeted on areas in which this country and the Community as a whole are best placed to provide the know-how which is absent from command economies, but vital to the development of mixed and market-based models. That is a feature of the programmes that we are endorsing in this debate, but it is also an important point about the way in which the British Government have approached this problem and this challenge.
The know-how funds that the Government set up were in principle an excellent idea, and I was pleased to serve on the unique—for the British Government—advisory board set up to oversee the funds for eastern Europe. This is an area in which Britain has much to offer the people of central and eastern Europe, and potentially much to gain from the partnership that it represents with them. In spite of 11 years of this Government, this country still has a significant contribution to make in banking, insurance and financial services. In these areas we have an experience and expertise that can be of real value to the emerging market economies of eastern Europe. We also possess expertise in the scientific, agricultural and cultural fields. If these economies are up and running as quickly and as strongly as possible, it is bound to be of real value to Britain and the rest of the European Community that we do what we are doing today.
We also have a special asset which can be to our advantage as well as to that of the central and eastern European countries—the parenthood of the English language. English is clearly the pre-eminent language in the worlds of business and industry, and eastern and central Europeans have not been slow to recognise that. Furthermore, there is a real desire in eastern Europe—more so than has become the case in many other countries—to learn the British rather than the American or any

other form of the language. And for once we already have the institutions in place to capitalise on this remarkable pro-British attitude, which is rare enough these days but heart-warmingly strong in countries such as Czechoslovakia. That warmth of feeling towards this country was amply illustrated by the approach to the Prime Minister as she regally wandered through the streets of Prague and Budapest not so long ago, but it has not, I fear, been reciprocated since then by a similar generosity of approach on her part.
I was interested to read in last Sunday's The Independent on Sunday a description of the problems facing those who seek to promote the English language. It pointed out that a certain Czech playwright has made an offer soon to restore the Prague palace, from which the British Council was ejected in 1949, to the British Council. That Czech playwright was, of course, Vaclav Havel, now President of Czechoslovakia but for so long a dissident for whom many hon. Members on both sides of the House campaigned and waged aggressive battles with the ambassador of the then Czechoslovak Peoples Republic. Havel has said that he has a major sentimental attachment to the English language and to the British Council, but as the article perceptively points out,
Havel's presidential fleet is made up of BMWs. The unquestionable economic power of the region is Germany".
If we have that attachment, that link, that valuable connection, it is a shame that other countries are in there and have made so much progress before us.
The BBC World Service has long been cherished as a precious resource in eastern and central Europe. In the days of totalitarianism, it was a source of reliable information when there were precious few others. Now, it is a central access point to the English language and British culture, which is still in demand there. In the British Council, praised by Vaclav Havel, we have in place the ideal instrument with which to extend the crucial process of promoting the British culture in these vital markets.
In order to continue the excellent work done over many years by the BBC, the British Council and many other British organisations overseas, we must ensure that we make the necessary funds available. The half-hearted efforts of the Government are not good enough, especially when compared with the priority given to this by our partners and competitors. For example, the French have just allocated 200 million French francs—over £20 million—to training people to teach French in eastern Europe. They are setting up imaginative and useful scholarship, broadcasting and exchange schemes across the new Europe.
The French are going to all this effort partly because they know that we have a head start through the English language but also because they know, given the attitude of the present British Government, that it will not take them very long to catch up with us. I plead with the Minister—I am sure that he is sympathetic because he is a long-standing friend of the British Council and of its teaching operations in Spain—to ensure that in central and eastern Europe the money required to carry out our commitments to English language teaching will be guaranteed for the future. That will be the most important leverage that we shall have in those countries.

Mr. Donald Thompson: Bismarck said that the most significant happening of his lifetime was that America turned out to be an English-speaking country.


Had it been a German-speaking country, the history of this century might have been very different. I reinforce what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Robertson: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support. I know that a lot of what I say about English language teaching and the World Service is not a partisan point of view because it is shared by many hon. Members. The difficulty is that, although the Minister and his Department are sympathetic and know what the advantages are, and what can be done with them, they are being outflanked by the Treasury, where the ears listening are not sympathetic to the pleas of the advantage that can come to Britain. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will add his voice to the strong voices saying that this is the time for Britain to take hold of its advantage and to pay out the money so that future generations will reap the benefit of the minimal expenditure involved.
Even in culture, the German equivalent of the British Council, the Goethe Institute, has recently opened new offices in Moscow, Warsaw, Prague, Cracow, Budapest, Bratislava and Sofia. About 10 million people in the region are learning German. I see these figures as rather more than coincidentally linked to the fact that German foreign cultural spending now stands at more than £1 billion. If we compare that and the growth in its cultural expenditure with the United Kingdom commitment, we begin to get a picture of where we are heading.
While the Germans are spending nearly £1 billion on restructuring, the Government, I regret to say, initially offered £50 million of know-how funds for Poland and £25 million for Hungary. Both offers were spread over five years. They also offered an unspecified amount, and it remains unspecified, to the other countries of eastern and central Europe when the offer was extended to them. The fact is that for the financial year to April 1991 there is a strict limit of £15 million on know-how expenditure for all the countries of eastern and central Europe.
I ask hon. Members to contrast that with one other statistic. The Government will be spending this year £20 million on the television advertising of electricity privatisation alone. That has to be contrasted with the total of £15 million that Britain is to spend on know-how for all the countries of eastern and central Europe. All the money for the six months to April 1991 is committed. Demand has increased but no more money is available until April 1991. There is no guarantee that after April 1991 additional money will be forthcoming. I am sure that I am not the only hon. Member who is less than 100 per cent. confident that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will get all the money that it needs during the autumn public spending round. We can only hope beyond hope that the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is not tinged with the same generosity in offering money as his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), the Secretary of State for Health.
The problem that the know-how funds face is compounded by the fact that while the Government are not very good at planning policy, or at government, they lead the field in disingenuous hype and self-promotion. By hyping the know-how funds, the Government were too successful. I made a speech last month to the Royal Institute of International Affairs in which I made that

point. I said that penetration was good, that interest had been aroused, that commitments had been made and the Ministers went to all these countries publicising them. But we shall be judged by what we do, not by what we say. If the plug is pulled now, as appears to be the case, in order to satisfy obsessional Treasury small print, disappointment will turn to anger. Disappointments and delays are lost opportunities for mutual benefit.
To parade brave central and eastern European leaders at the Conservative party conference and across our television screens during party political broadcasts is no substitute for giving them the help and the know-how that their economies need. To take the place of those broadcasts there will be a catalogue of broken promises and unfulfilled expectations.
As a result of my contacts and the work that I do here, I know many of the people in the countries concerned. I have listened to their pleas and to their worries and concerns. I place on record their demoralisation.
Both I and the Minister know precisely what is at stake. This should not be a party political matter. I did not believe that it was when I joined the know-how fund's advisory board. We are talking about a unique opportunity for Britain—either alone or, with more value, through the European Community—to grasp the enormous opportunities offered by the democratisation of central and eastern Europe.
I draw the attention of the House to an article in The European Business Journal written by Mr. Ralph Land, a member of the Government's advisory board on the know-how fund and general manager of Rank Xerox's eastern Europe export operations. In his fine article he said:
There is some evidence that those companies that have persisted in the East European market have succeeded in developing profitable business and most of them are looking at the future with some degree of encouragement even while the short-term outlook may be less encouraging. What is now happening in East Europe and the USSR is unprecedented. While the outlook is uncertain there must be a real possibility that these changes will provide the West with unprecedented business opportunities in one of the world's last underdeveloped markets.
If we squander the chances when the breaks are available to us, it will not be our doomed Government who suffer but future generations of Britons who deserve far better than that.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: I welcome unequivocally the subject of the debate, which is the proposed regulation that extends the Community's economic aid to all of Germany, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia and, with some reservations, Romania, in addition to Poland and Hungary who have received it hitherto. I welcome also the removal of the limit on the level of finance available under the previous regulations. It enables the Community to give humanitarian assistance and much more to the beneficiary countries.
The document cannot be considered in a vacuum. It is linked within the foundation and location of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development with a capital of 10 billion ecu, working alongside the European investment bank. Other financial institutions will continue to play their part.
This is the first opportunity I have had to welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to his new position. However, I


must tell him that we are not doing enough. By "we", I mean not just this country but all the countries of the developed western world. I have mentioned before and should like to reiterate the suggestion of the establishment of an all-embracing Strasbourg plan. Such a plan would add focus and direction to what the European Community can do and would embrace the actions of other institutions and nations. I believe that it is only under such an umbrella and with such identifiable motivation that whatever help is given in whatever form will be planned and carried out to best effect.
That is all the more important because such help will take many forms, including grants, soft loans, interest rate subsidies and preferential access to western markets, mostly free of customs duties and other taxes, as it is for other countries receiving help from the European Community under the Lomé convention. It will take the form of direct investment and know-how funds such as the £15 million contributed by the United Kingdom this year. I share the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) about the amounts we are providing, but we should not lack pride in what the know-how funds are already achieving.
Such a Strasbourg plan should be designed on the principles which underlie the recommendations we are considering now—encouraging self-help and creating stable conditions in which free institutions can survive. After the exhilaration of liberation in eastern and central Europe, those countries face the challenge of living free. They face it after development at a most extraordinary speed. It has been said that the revolution in Poland, where Solidarity first confronted Communist rule a decade ago, took 10 years. In Hungary, the changes initiated by liberals in the party itself took 10 months. In East Germany, demonstrators were on the streets for 10 weeks before Honecker's bogus state collapsed. Czechoslovakia's hardliners held out for only about 10 days, and in Romania it was virtually all over in the first 10 hours after the crowds booed Ceausescu. However, the bloody counter-revolution lasted longer and things still have not settled down there.
The Strasbourg plan should help those countries to tackle the problems they face. It should be a political effort, couched in economic terms, and a foreign policy initiative, the main objective of which should be to help to create viable and stable national economies in central and eastern Europe. Those economies must be strong enough to resist political or economic subversion, and therefore able to contribute to the harmonious development of economic activities in Europe, to which the European Community is so correctly committed.
To achieve that, like the Marshall plan 40 years ago, the Strasbourg plan must be of massive dimensions. The Marshall plan cost ․12,000 million over four years. That represented 1·2 per cent. of the United States's gross national product in that period. As a guideline, applying the same percentage to the gross domestic product of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries would demand funding of about £400,000 million for the next four years. That is quite a challenge, but it is also an enormous opportunity.
I remind the House of the success of the imaginative levels of funding under the Marshall plan. It increased the national gross domestic product of recipient nations by 15 to 20 per cent., rates of investment by 30 per cent., industrial production by more than 30 per cent. and

agricultural production by almost 15 per cent., although I believe that the Strasbourg plan should far exceed that proportion. It increased export trade by 66 per cent.; imports increased by 20 per cent.; and trade between the recipient countries almost doubled.
Those were the successes of the Marshall plan, despite continued exchange controls and continued quantitative national import restrictions. The Strasbourg plan, properly executed, should far exceed those, to the benefit of recipient and donor countries alike. Such a plan should not be measured or judged only by short-term economic results. It should provide a cornerstone for achievement in central and eastern Europe in the next decade, and though designed to address specific and immediate economic problems it should help to lay the foundations for free, peaceful democratic practice in those countries. That is a good wish for them and a self-serving wish for ourselves.
A Strasbourg plan would vividly illustrate our shared western heritage. It would illuminate and motivate, at last, a shared common purpose of spreading freedom and of the use of that freedom to benefit all European peoples. In so doing, it would mark the start of a new epoch in history.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will not only carry the support of the House in the recommendations that we are considering but use this moment to start planning such a co-ordinated effort, which could make a difference not only to this decade but to the century ahead.

Mr. Bruce George: We are debating the extent to which we in the west should help to underpin the emerging democracies in eastern and central Europe, enhance their political systems and rebuild and build their economies, which hardly function. Those countries' economies are now seen to have been bereft of any competence or initiative, and we know that their output was low. Now we are reappraising the bogus statistics that were produced and discovering just how economically, morally and politically bankrupt those regimes were. I would class them as a series of gigantic Whips Offices. When the Minister takes a cheap shot at the Opposition, I shall be tempted to reciprocate by saying that, having spent so long in the Whips Office, he ought to know a thing or two about authoritarian structures. Like the Romanians and the eastern Europeans, he has emerged from a nightmare of discipline—in this case into the relative freedom of the Foreign Office.
No one is asking whether we should help central and eastern Europe. We are merely discussing the extent to which we should help them. Despite the rhetoric and euphoria that greeted the collapse of communism—the collapse of the decks of cards in eastern Europe—I wonder whether the collective efforts of multinational organisations, Governments, the private sector and individuals will be sufficient. It is clear that the survival of the new democracies in eastern and central Europe will largely depend on their own endeavours. But that should not provide us with an easy let-out, because both their progress and our interests will be served by a massive collective effort by the public and private sectors and by Governments—not simply through economic assistance, loans and the wiping out of debts but through the provision of political expertise. Matters are fairly easy


now: things are going well. But things might suddenly get worse, and if that happens, the support of western countries will be even more important.

Sir Alan Glyn: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this is a unique opportunity in the history of Europe and of the world, and that we should take advantage of what has happened in the countries of eastern Europe, which we have all visited at various times? If we do not take this opportunity now, we shall lose many opportunities in future.

Mr. George: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I suppose that it is slowly dawning on people that the success that has been achieved was not inevitable. We realise now that things can go wrong—that they are going wrong in some respects. We must realise that a year from now, or five years from now, the whole thing could turn sour. Suppose that there is a counter-revolution or that the dark forces suppressed by totalitarianism for more than 40 years re-emerge. We in the west will have to assume some of the responsibility for the failure that may result in eastern and central Europe.
One of the pleasurable tasks that I have had to perform in my capacity as chairman of the political committee of the North Atlantic Assembly is to produce for publication a chronology of the events of the past 12 months. The first entry, dated October 1989, describes how thousands of East Germans were allowed to enter West Germany through embassies in Prague and Warsaw. That happened just 12 months ago. It is almost impossible to believe how much has happened in such a short time. I am sure that historians will regard the past 12 months as epoch-making ones. They will regard this year in the same way as they have regarded 1789, 1815, 1848, 1918 and 1945. But all those great years were years in which Europe was transformed by revolution, by a civil war or by a major conflict. In 1989 and 1990, however, there was a virtually bloodless revolution—a series of velvet revolutions—and we must be eternally grateful for that.
Few could have predicted what happened. Certainly those who were least prepared for it were Jaruzelski, Honecker, Jakes, Kadar and Zhivkov. Why did it happen? It happened because the legitimacy of regimes was exposed. Gorbachev had said that no longer would Soviet armed forces be available to sustain the unsustainable. Bereft of legitimacy and of Soviet military support, those regimes have proved completely bankrupt and the democratic forces have emerged.
I had intended to quote Timothy Garton Ash, but was pre-empted by the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone). Let me now quote from Havel's address to the assembly of the Council of Europe a few months ago:
Time suddenly accelerated and what otherwise took a year suddenly happened in an hour … the impossible and the dream became reality. The stoker's dream became the daily routine of the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
That is a cause for euphoria, but our euphoria must be translated into something that might be a burden for our constituents and our Government.
The jettisoning of Stalinism was almost simple in comparison with the nation-building that must now take place. The first stage was represented by the events that led up to the revolutions in eastern Europe, the second stage

by the revolutions themselves; the third stage was that of transitional government before elections provided legitimacy. It is the present stage that will be the difficult one.
I do not feel that what our Government have done is remotely sufficient. If goods and assistance could be equated with rhetoric, eastern Europe would be as happy as the East Germans will be with the West Germans sustaining them. Our efforts so far would bring about the regeneration of Transylvania, if we were disposed to provide the resources. Much more must be done.
We face a monumental task. Politicians in eastern and central Europe are learning by experience: people who were denied access to the political system are now holding key offices, and must deal with obsolescent industry, limited capital, an unmotivated and, in many instances, unskilled work force, entrenched opposition from forces that have not yet been eliminated politically and peacefully and the lack of any entrepreneurial skill or spirit.
The Minister talks of movement to a market economy. I suspect that the market economy in those countries will be tempered by a significant dose of social market economy. Some may argue that a halfway house is impossible, but this is not a halfway house. I have visited eastern Europe many times, and I know that people there are enthusiastic about their perception of Scandinavia. I suspect that what will eventually emerge could be more accurately described as a social market economy.
We now have support from the EC, and the American seed support, for eastern democracy; there is support from the banks. But we must not look only towards economic assistance and know-how; we must also consider the political framework within which these countries are to emerge. The magnet of the European Community and 1992 was, I believe, one of the significant factors that led to the collapse of communism in eastern Europe: those people could see that, while their societies were disintegrating and old rivalries were beginning to emerge, we in the west were going in the opposite direction. It was the realisation that there was a distance between them, with their COMECON, and us. Someone said to me when I attended a COMECON meeting, "The Phoenicians invented currency 3,000 years ago; we are still operating a system of primitive barter in COMECON." It was the realisation that the gap was widening by the hour that led them to realise that their system had been exhausted.
We must do much more. The know-how fund is wonderful in principle, but it is not sufficiently great in its scope. Although the Minister has excluded Romania for the moment, I wish to advance an argument that may not be especially popular. I was in Romania 10 days after the revolution and I can speak with some knowledge, but not with any certainty. I think that President Iliescu's use of the miners was shameful and wrong and that his country has paid a heavy price for it. The Balkans, however, are not the central or northern tiers of eastern Europe. They are quite different from those areas, and considerable progress has been made so far. The Romanian Government, even though we may not like them, were elected in a relatively free election and have a legitimacy.
Perhaps I am introducing extraneous factors into the argument, but we must remember that it was a Romanian ambassador to the United Nations who chaired the Security Council in August and who was crucial in enabling extremely important resolutions on the Gulf to pass through the council. It was Romania that imposed sanctions, at enormous cost to itself. Romania has offered


United States armed forces the opportunity of rest, rehabilitation and recuperation on the Black sea. If the offer is accepted, it will be the first time that NATO forces have been in Warsaw pact territory. For those reasons alone, we should look a little more sympathetically at Romania. We should not use the stick or the promise of a carrot. Unless we are prepared to assist more enthusiastically than the Government have so far, Romania will be almost frozen on the other side of an imaginary divide.
Why should we be so tolerant of Bulgaria? The reigning Government Ministers—again, a freely elected administration—are members of what was the Bulgarian Communist party, which has been reformed and called the Bulgarian Socialist party. If we are tolerant of one set of reformed communists, we should have rather more tolerance of another more reformist and augmented branch of the regime, which is perhaps different in form, in Romania.
These countries are passing through an horrendous period in their history. Will they seek the road of gradualism or that of shock therapy? If they make wrong decisions, much will turn sour. As the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) said, we have much expertise. We have much to give through the BBC World Service—or the BBC external services, which are not exactly the same as the World Service—and it is vital that we do more than cheer. We must help. We must do infinitely more, and it is only right that we should give more. We must provide trade, access to our markets and know-how. Only then shall we see pluralistic, functioning and prosperous democracies in eastern and central Europe.

Mr. Hugo Summerson: At a ridiculously late hour, once again, we are discussing extremely important matters. Earlier, we spent two and a quarter hours discussing the Redbridge London Borough Council Bill. We spent another two hours or so on the London Underground Bill. I am not saying that they are not important matters, but to discuss matters such as those that are before us at this hour of the night, with the debate restricted to one and a half hours, cannot be right.
The motion mentions the provision of co-ordinated economic aid to Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Poland and Hungary. I am all in favour of that. Also relevant to the motion is the establishment of a European bank for reconstruction and development. It is being established as an international development bank, the broad purpose of which is described as being to foster the transition to open market economies and to promote private enterprise in those east and central European countries which are committed to the principles of democracy. So far, so good.
Eight recipient countries will have access to loans from the hank. Furthermore, as the 27th report of the Select Committee on European Legislation states:
The Department reports that the Bank will lend on broadly commercial terms.
Again, I am all in favour of that, but as has already been said—by hon. Members of all parties—we must be extremely careful about the possibility of those countries building up huge borrowings. We have been through all this before in the past 20 or so years. The developed countries have lent huge amounts of money to third-world

countries, doubtless with the best of intentions—and, as a result, many third-world countries are today struggling under a mountain of debts which they have no possibility of ever paying off. We need to be extremely generous not only in the years but in the decades ahead.
From the enormous pile of papers that I picked up earlier from the Vote Office, I gather that, in the present year, aid to the countries of central and eastern Europe from the European Community totals some 300 million ecu. Incidentally, what a horrible expression "ecu" is—almost as bad as the phrase "European currency units". However, that sum is not very much in terms of the problems of those countries, especially when we consider how much money West Germany is proposing to spend on the GDR. It is not just 300 million ecu this year and possibly a few hundred million more ecu next year—it is talking of so many billions upon billions of deutschmarks that I have lost count of the number of noughts on the end. As has been said, we have a great opportunity here. We must take that opportunity, and we must be generous.
An Adjournment debate is the Commons equivalent of putting out the milk bottles. We are not yet on the Adjournment, and it is now 1·2 am. I bet those bottles were put out hours ago. We need to get our priorities right here—and in our dealings with our friends in central and eastern Europe.

Dr. Kim Howells: The immense changes in central and eastern Europe pose great challenges to the member states of the European Community and to the community as a whole. Great potential markets are beginning to be identified and developed in central and eastern Europe. We are also beginning to understand the monumental scale of the social and environmental rehabilitation that will be necessary to bring the quality of the lives of those living in central and eastern Europe up to the minimum standards existing in most western European countries.
The expanding markets of eastern Europe offer an obvious challenge to our manufacturing and service industries and the potential rewards are not difficult to imagine, but the area that I have termed "social and environmental rehabilitation" also has its potential rewards, and it is on that area and those rewards that I wish to concentrate.
The environment of central and eastern Europe, for example, is as badly polluted as any part of the planet. The West Germans have revealed from their surveys that some 55 per cent. of East German forests are damaged, while more than 40 per cent. of its waste water is untreated. East Germany reported 15,000 uncontrolled toxic waste tips. It imports 700,000 metric tonnes a year of waste from West Germany alone. In central and eastern Europe as a whole it is calculated that 1,200 million tonnes of carbon dioxide and almost 23 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide are pumped into the environment each year.
The European Community is at present the main multilateral agency supplying aid for environmental purposes to eastern Europe. Aid for specific environmental purposes has already been given under the EC-administered scheme PHARE—Poland Hungary Aid for Reconstruction of the Economy. It has given £18 million to Hungary and £16 million to Poland. I understand that that will be extended to East Germany, Czechoslovakia,


Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and Romania, conditional, of course, on those countries carrying out the necessary political reforms which were mentioned by several hon. Members tonight.
Anxiety about the environment in eastern Europe is widening. In particular, the World bank is concerning itself with environmental issues in middle-income as well as developing countries. In May it established an environment fund of US․1 billion to US․1·2 billion for use over the next three years to help to deal with cross-border issues such as deforestation and climate change.
The World bank has relaxed the income restrictions for its soft loans which would have excluded eastern Europe. It is expected to commit US․2·5 billion to Poland over the next three years and a further US․2·5 billion to the rest of eastern Europe. However, with applications from both Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria under consideration, it is likely that commitments to the region over the next three years will be US․2 billion or so higher, at a total of about US․7 billion. Those funds are for general development, rather than environmental improvements only. They are substantial sums of money and represent a serious attempt at tackling the problem. But in terms of the estimated cost of arresting the worst effects of existing pollution. I am afraid that they are extremely modest. For example, West Germany estimates the cost of clean-up in eastern Germany alone at some US․200 billion over 20 years. Poland requires US․25 billion this decade to arrest air, Iand and water pollution.
Poland's need is desperate. Half its lakes are contaminated. Half its forests are damaged from acid rain. Poland has five times the incidence of cancer of the west. It has been reported that water from the Vistula river corrodes heavy machinery. In Krakow one in six babies is born prematurely. In some areas 44 out of every 1,000 babies born die before they reach their first birthday. Poland's factories use three times the energy and produce 10 to 20 times the pollution of western ones. Pollution there is greater by a factor of 10 than in the west.
Those are horrendous statistics but they are not the litany of some distant disaster. Poland is a European neighbour of ours, like Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania. We know that when radioactivity was pumped out of the Ukraine from Chernobyl it fell across Europe, recognising no borders or frontiers. The
The appalling problems do not merely represent an enormous challenge to the European Community. They represent a chance for economies such as our own, which is in the middle of great changes, to accept those challenges and use them to promote and develop existing technologies designed to achieve a cleaner, more efficient use of energy. We have expertise in clean-up technologies which we should exploit.
My area of south Wales has had tremendous experience in the engineering and energy industries. I have long cherished the idea of that region becoming the manufacturing centre of new energy industries—the clean technologies. We must use those technologies in eastern and western Europe to substitute for our huge levels of fossil-fuel burning and our dirty production systems.
We must be astute about the way in which we approach the problems in eastern Europe. I do not want to sound unfashionably competitive about this, but I am worried

that Germany, France, Sweden and Denmark will steal a march on us in terms of the promotion and development of new technologies. The eastern Europeans will look for such technology and I have already read about the joint proposals between the Poles and the Swedes, and possibly the Soviets, to clean up the Baltic. They share that sea and recognise that they face a common problem.
Europe is a small, shared continent. It takes about two hours to go from Heathrow to Warsaw. It takes me longer than that to drive from Heathrow to my constituency, especially if the wonderful Severn bridge is having one of its off days. We must recognise the inherent constrictions on the continent and our shared future.
We must ensure that we develop and expand new technologies so that we can take them to eastern Europe and that we are part of the technological revolution. That is the only answer to the appalling pollution in eastern Europe.
Reports have already been made on the dreadful state of some nuclear plants in eastern Europe. Teams of German nuclear scientists have gone to East Germany and advised that all its nuclear power stations should be closed down immediately because they are unsafe. That is not a general comment on nuclear energy installations in eastern Europe, but a specific observation made by German scientists. We have a great centre of nuclear excellence at Seilafield and we should vigorously employ that excellence by helping to decommission the dreadful plants in East Germany. That work would be a good earner for Sellafield and could do something to promote the image of the scientists and engineers of the industry who have frequently been under attack. Such work would benefit Europe a great deal.
I know that there are industries trying their hardest to push their products and technologies in eastern Europe. I am not sure that that determination is shared by the Government, but perhaps the Minister could enlighten me on that. People in British Gas are doing excellent work in East Germany by helping to improve the transportation systems of natural gas. By entering into such partnerships, British Gas and other industries will ensure their futures in an important market.
I know some of the details of the excellent know-how programme, but I am rather disturbed, having added it up in a naive way I am sure, at the cost of some schemes. I have calculated that the British Government are intending to spend, or have spent, £475,000 on training and retraining eastern European journalists, and have spent £30,000 on schemes for improving the environment in eastern Europe. I can understand their anxiety not to produce large numbers of Brian Redheads in eastern Europe, but I do not understand the logic that informs such decision making. Why is there such a discrepancy? I should be glad if the Minister would enlighten me about that because it seems an extraordinary decision.
I hope that this momentous phase in European history will not be subject to the mistakes that we have made with other under-developed areas of the world, and that we will not simply treat eastern and central Europe to the sorts of unfulfilled promises that we have given so often in the past to the under-developed nations of the third world. I hope that we will realise that we have a shared destiny with Europe, whether eastern, central or western Europe. and that we will put our money, efforts and know-how where our promises have so often been in the past.

Mr. Roger Knapman: I shall be brief and I hope that treason is forgivable at this time of the night. I am sorry to cast a little doubt over the great visions and grand designs that have been expressed so far, particularly about saving eastern Europe, which seems to be what most people hope.
We have bilateral aid measures, largely through the know-how fund, and multilateral aid measures, largely through help to Poland and Hungary, and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. I was taken by a speech made by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development as recently as 26 June, when she set out how aid programmes should be judged. She said:
we know that one cannot solve the highly complex problems of development by throwing money at them. Aid quality and effectiveness are equally vital … Unless we ensure that our aid is used effectively, we are wasting precious resources for the developing countries and squandering British taxpayers' money in the process. Such action is neither sensible nor defensible. That is why we concentrate on using our aid where it is most needed and why we have rigorous systems in place to ensure project effectiveness and value for money."—[Official Report, 26 June 1990; Vol. 175, c. 253.]
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State would readily agree with that.
With those thoughts in mind, how can we measure which is more effective—bilateral or multilateral aid? I also wonder whether multilateral aid will be in any way subject to parliamentary control. I have considerable doubts about that since earlier today we had an hour and a quarter to discuss procedures for considering European Community legislation and voted that any proposal which required adoption by unanimity abstention should be treated as agreement. I do not remember my hon. Friend the Minister of State, when he was in the Whips Office, suggesting that that would be acceptable. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development also spoke of rigorous systems to ensure project effectiveness and value for money. How do we know that that will be achieved with multilateral aid? Which is most likely to benefit United Kingdom trade—bilateral aid or multilateral aid?
Aid for trade is a good principle—£1 of aid can easily lead to £2, £3 or £5 of trade. With what I understand to be a £630 million investment in the bank, how much trade could have been generated under bilateral aid measures? Well-directed bilateral aid, particularly by liaising with the British Consultants Bureau, can be of direct benefit to British industry and therefore of direct benefit to our balance of payments.
That is to be compared with what has happened so far in East Germany. The Germans are not only our partners—they are also our business competitors—but so far the West Germans have taken over East Germany's airline, banks and insurance industry. The rest is just so much dross. I do not think that any British companies had the opportunity to invest in East Germany in any meaningful way. There should be some lessons there for us in dealing with other eastern European countries. If subsidiarity means anything, we should put greater stress on bilateral aid measures.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) has been in the Chamber for as long as I have, so I shall confine myself to four questions.
First, what assessment has the Foreign Office made of the situation in the middle east and escalating oil prices which may be responsible for no less than the collapse of economic reform as we understand it in areas such as Bulgaria, and perhaps Poland and other parts of eastern Europe? In particular, what is the outcome of the discussions between Mr. Delors, Mr. Sitaryan and separately with Mr. Andriessen on that subject? There must be some Foreign Office assessment.
Secondly, may I have a long written answer to points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), encapsulated in the fact that apparently one mark spent in eastern Europe is worth six spent in western Europe on anti-pollution measures?
In terms of this debate my third question is not a theoretical one. Given that funds are limited, what is the Foreign Office's thinking on the relative priorities of aid to eastern Europe and aid to Brazil, Zaire and other rain forest countries? A great deal has been said by me and by others in the House about the need to help those countries with rain forests so as to make it possible for them not to destroy their rain forests to the detriment of the global climate, the world in general and the planet itself. There may have to be choices and I would be interested to know the Foreign Office's relative priorities.
I have given the Minister a little notice of my fourth question which comes from discussion with my friend Paul Hare, professor of business studies at Heriot-Watt university, who is on one of the working parties, and with others. What are we doing to provide for eastern Europe what any well-run western firm would simply take for granted in the way of accounting expertise? I applaud the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) is on the know-how fund's advisory board and I know that he knows a lot about it, but there is a problem about providing for aspects such as accounting which we take for granted.
My final point is to repeat the question about non-transferable roubles that I put to the Minister during his opening speech.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: It is extremely good of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) to split the last five minutes of the debate with me. It is almost impossible to make a 120-second speech, so I shall not attempt to describe my fascinating experiences in Roman:ia in the past few days, regretful though that is, and just concentrate on one small point, which is to do with the scrutiny of the documents.
I warmly welcome the motion. It is rare for us to have such a united and harmonious debate on European directives at this late hour. But I want to make a critical and perhaps irritating point, but nevertheless an important one in view of the fact that we are changing our scrutiny arrangements.
The basic document that we are discussing tonight is EC document 7720. That publication is true to the Brussel's tradition of supplying the national Parliaments with the least possible information. The Foreign Office's


three-page explanatory memorandum is as thin as dishwater too, and I want to impress on my hon. Friend the Minister that we shall expect a much higher standard in future.
If one wants answers to questions that any sensible person may have about Community aid to eastern Europe—such as the size of the budget, how it is being allocated, which countries are receiving which sums of money, which development projects are to be financed by ECA, and what proportion is being devoted to humanitarian assistance and what form it takes—they cannot be found in the document. That is a regrettable error, but typical of the attitude shown by both the Commission and, sadly, sometimes by our Government towards scrutiny.
In the two minutes available to me, it has not been possible to make a sensible speech, but the documents are seriously defective, and I add that complaint in the hope that it will be remedied.

Mr. Garel-Jones: I thank the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and all the other hon. Members who have contributed to the debate for the generally constructive tone of their remarks. The hon. Member for Hamilton could not resist taking a few swipes at the Government, and I do not chide him for that. I will respond with some of my own, but I hope without spoiling the amicable nature of the debate overall. If I am unable to cover all the points made in the short time available to me, I will of course write to the hon. Members concerned.
The hon. Member for Hamilton said that brave words from a Minister are not enough, which I accept, and that we must create a culture of optimism. I wish that he had spoken instead of a culture of enterprise, because that is what we are trying to achieve. I agree that we cannot approach the problems of eastern Europe by simply throwing money at it. though I noticed that the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) seemed shocked that a member of her party's Front Bench appeared to be coming round to the view that we have expressed in the House for a long time.

Mr. Robertson: The John Smith school.

Mr. Garel-Jones: Indeed.
The hon. Member for Hamilton made specific mention of the British Council, and I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members agree that it has a specific role to play not only in teaching the English language in the countries of eastern Europe but as the organisation that we will frequently use in implementing know-how fund projects. The council has been given an extra £2·25 million for the year 1990–91 to cover its additional activities in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.
The hon. Member for Hamilton referred also—although perhaps not strictly in order, in relation to the document being debated—to the United Kingdom's bilateral aid in what I thought were unnecessarily disparaging terms. The United Kingdom was the first country to initiate a know-how fund, and it is now worth in excess of £75 million to Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. We expect to make disbursements by the end of the 1991 financial year of £17·4 million. In addition, we have pledged £15 million for an agricultural project in

Poland, made a grant of ․100 million, or £61·7 million, to the Polish stabilisation fund, and given £900,000 in humanitarian aid to Romania. As part of the Paris Club rescheduling agreement for 1990, the United Kingdom rescheduled £550 million of official Polish debt.
Obviously we all want to do more, but the Government deserved a slightly better response from the hon. Member for Hamilton than they received.
The know-how fund has been a huge success. There is great demand for it and the money has, I admit, been spent rather more quickly than we had expected this year; but I assure the House that future activities will be generously funded and in relation to demand.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) told us—we would all agree with him—that an enormous political effort now needs to be made to create viable and sustainable economies, and he referred to the Marshall plan. I cannot entirely agree with his linking of the Marshall and the Strasbourg plans, but I share his view of the enormity of the task that faces us.
The hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) referred to the European communist regimes as gigantic whips offices. The hon. Gentleman knows that I have some experience in these matters. Indeed, this is one of the few areas in which I would claim to have more experience than the hon. Gentleman, who we know to have been, in difficult times, a staunch supporter of NATO and to have held a whole range of other positions that were not always easy to adhere to in the Opposition.
The former employment that I held—one should refrain from referring to it overtly on the Floor of the House—is indeed a kind of Securitate, but I assure the hon. Member for Walsall, South that it is a democratic version of the Securitate. As I no longer belong to it, perhaps I can take this opportunity of paying tribute on behalf of both sides of the House to the people who work in that underground world and who provide a service and a continuity for the House which should be placed on record.
The hon. Member for Walsall, South told the House that he was euphoric about the events in eastern Europe. But his hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) is less euphoric about them. The hon. Gentleman also said that he would like a social market economy to emerge. That is not a phrase from which Conservative Members would dissent. It was given wide currency by Lord Joseph. We have always accepted that the market economy and Conservatism are also about living in a community and accepting the duties and responsibilities that that entails.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) mentioned the EBRD. He is right that we should not build up huge debts for the countries in the east. I remind him that the main purpose of the EBRD is to promote the private sector, to make investments in that sector and to help to build it up.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) made a thoughtful speech about the environment in eastern Europe. He painted an horrendous picture of what he called "these terrible statistics". That was the moment when the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East chose to leave the Chamber. No doubt he found it difficult to bear the gruesome picture of a command economy in failure. I should tell the hon. Gentleman that I referred to him in my opening remarks, when I said that last Friday he had praised the full employment policies of the


former German Democratic Republic. I was only surprised that he had not risen to praise its law and order policies, too——

Mr. Harry Barnes: What was said in that debate has no connection with the points about pollution, and was in no way a defence of the bureaucratic and organisational abuses in eastern Europe. But there is a balance to be struck in all debates, and that is what I was trying to do last Friday.

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 ( Exempted business).

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7720/90, relating to the extension of the provisions of Council regulation No. 3906/89 to Czechoslovakia, GDR, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and Romania; and supports the Government's view that the provision of co-ordinated economic aid to those countries by the European Community will promote economic and political reform in those countries and foster a closer relationship with the Community.

British Hostages (Kuwait)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Ms. Diane Abbott: This Adjournment debate is about the British hostages still held by Iraq. I stress that, because after the Foreign Secretary's statement today and the successful completion of the mission undertaken by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) there is a feeling that the hostage issue is over, but it is not. Tonight, 40 families have been reunited with elderly and sick relatives who were held hostage. Hundreds more, however, watched the television pictures of that reunion with happiness but also with profound sadness because they are still waiting for their relatives. I address the House on behalf of those families, and particularly the Ross family in Stoke Newington, my constituents, who were on the unfortunate British Airways flight BA 149. Alastair Ross has now been held hostage for three months.
I want to draw attention to the hostages on flight BA 149 because it cannot be said of them, as it has been said of other hostages, fairly or unfairly, that they went out to the middle east to earn big money and knew the risk that they ran. The people on that flight were in transit and unwittingly found themselves in a war zone. The horror that followed was entirely unlooked for.
In the emergency debate on the Gulf crisis. the Foreign Secretary said:
The House represents those people and their families. In the debate it was striking that not one hon. Member argued that because of the plight, anxiety, unhappiness and suffering of the hostages and their families we should weaken or temper this country's resistance to aggression. That is a striking and welcome fact, and I believe that they accept that. It is a hard thing to say, but a necessary thing to say."—[Official Report, 7 September 1990; Vol. 177, c. 895–6.]
Let us reflect on what the Foreign Secretary meant by that. I believe that he meant that hostages are expendable, and the fear that that is what Her Majesty's Government believe led me to seek this debate.
This morning, I woke up to hear on the radio the Under-Secretary of State saying in an embarrassed way that he was not embarrassed to welcome the hostages home. Those of us who followed the coverage that the mission undertaken by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup had in the Tory press and noted the sneering way in which it referred to him wonder whether in some quarters of his party a humanitarian mission aimed at saving lives earns less glory than war-mongering and military adventures.
The people on flight 149 were entirely unwittingly caught up in a war zone. I shall speak of the experiences of the Ross family and the hundreds of other people on that plane on that terrible night. They left London on 1 August on their way to Madras, touched down on 2 August at Kuwait airport just to refuel and found themselves in the middle of a war zone. The Ross family then had to spend 12 days as part of a human shield at a military installation. For four of those days, Alastair, Maggie and two small children, with many others, were under military guard in a building with no natural light. Imagine the horror of not just adults but tiny children under armed guard in those conditions.
On 2 September, Maggie Ross and her two children were able to fly to London, but she left her husband behind. The fact is that 146 hostages from flight BA 149 have been left behind. They are held not in luxury hotels but at military installations.
The Foreign Secretary, speaking today about the hostages, said this:
We should not forget that the plight.….of our hostages has been caused by Saddam Hussein who is playing cat and mouse with them, and the British Government and this Parliament would not wish to be blackmailed.
That is stern and resolute stuff, but both I and the families of the hostages would say that the British Government cannot be allowed to evade their responsibilities in that way.
Many of the hostages' families, including my constituent Maggie Ross, believe that the Government could do more. They want the Government to press again for consular access. My information is that consular access was last made available on 16 August. If the Minister has more up-to-date information, I shall be glad to have it. They want the Government to continue to press for Red Cross and Red Crescent access. I am aware that the Iraqis have turned down that request, but the hostages' families want the Government to continue to press for that access.
As for the vexed question of mail, Maggie Ross has received a number of letters from her husband which are very precious to her. She has replied, but apparently no mail is going in. The Foreign Office says that the hold-up is in Amman, Jordan. However, I have information that mail sent many weeks before did not leave England until 26 September. There is a great deal of unhappiness among the hostages' families about what has happened to the mail and about what is preventing it from going in when mail is coming out.
Finally—I am loth to criticise civil servants because I was one myself—many questions have been asked about the attitude of the Foreign Office. The majority of officials and very many individuals have done a wonderful job, but there have been too many reports—during conversations that I have had, both with hostages families and with people who work for British Airways, and in newspaper articles—about wrong and late information and about the occasional and unfortunate offhand attitude. There have been too many reports from too many sources about that. The Minister had to reply to those criticisms in a letter to The Independent a few days ago. They cannot be dismissed.
Still on the subject of Government Departments, what are we to make of the intelligence services on which we spend so much money and regarding which we have recently passed so much legislation to protect? They could not even predict the invasion.
In the special debate in September, speaking about the hostages, the Foreign Secretary said that the Government's undertaking was
that we shall not forget them or in any way relax our efforts to get them out safe and sound."—[Official Report, 7 September 1990; Vol. 177, c. 896.]
The hostages' families feel forgotten. They believe that getting the hostages out safe and sound is the Government's last priority.
There is no doubt that the annexation of Kuwait was wrong, that Saddam Hussein is one of the most cruel and brutal dictators among many world-wide and that there is a lot at stake in the Gulf. However, some of us believe that

the saving of human life and the avoidance of bloodshed come before many if not all the other things at stake in the Gulf. I believe that the saving of human life comes before the interests of American oil companies, above the provision of cheap oil in perpetuity for the United States, above military adventurism and above loss of face for the British Government and the American military. I also believe—as do many people, both in this country but above all in the middle east—that a peaceful settlement is still possible.
I am aware that negotiation and diplomacy do not go hand in hand with the resolute approach, but I have listened to the debate in the House and followed the issue in the newspapers, and the Government's attitude and that of most hon. Members seems to be that the plight of the hostages is all very well but that we cannot allow a handful of people to stand in the way of military action which is in our best interests. I would argue that, on the contrary, far from the hostages standing in the way of a military adventure that is in our best interests, their plight should focus attention on that action which is in everyone's interests—a peaceful, negotiated settlement.
I was driven to seek this Adjournment debate by the obvious misery and concern of my constituents, but this debate, short though it is, is not about one family, about the families of all the hostages from British Airways flight 149 or even about all the other hostages; it is about peace and a stable long-term settlement for the middle east. I ask the Minister to move away from the attitude which has caused so much concern to the hostages' families and which seems to suggest that some sort of military adventure is inevitable. I hope that he will answer some of the detailed questions that I have asked so as to reassure the hostages' families, some of whom are in the Gallery, that the Government are continuing to keep up the pressure for them and have their interests at heart, and that the prospects for a peaceful negotiated settlement are not being ignored or marginalised.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): I should like to thank the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) for giving the House the opportunity to debate a subject of great concern. She has spoken of the distress caused to her constituents by the enforced separation from members of their families trapped in Kuwait and Iraq. I knew about the case of Mr. Alastair Ross from the questions that she tabled and from other contacts and I have familiarised myself with his situation.
The hon. Lady said at the beginning of her remarks that she sensed from the Foreign Secretary's comments this afternoon that there was a feeling that the hostage issue was over. I refute that completely. We take this matter immensely seriously. Almost every hon. Member will have heard at first hand of the emotional and practical problems being experienced by families in the United Kingdom as a result of Saddam Hussein's refusal to allow foreign men to return to their homes. We are in constant touch with the Gulf Support Group, a voluntary organisation founded by, among others, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward). That group is doing a magnificent job in comforting and counselling families.


My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have visited the organisation and I plan to visit it very soon.
The hon. Lady made some criticisms of officials in the Foreign Office. I hope that she is in touch with the Gulf Support Group because the Foreign Office is closely in touch with it. If she asked the support group to make a judgment on its relationship with officials in the Foreign Office, she would find that their comments were not unfavourable.
Last weekend—on 20 October—a senior Foreign and Commonwealth Office official attended a meeting organised by the Gulf Support Group. It was a valuable opportunity for contact with the 150 or so relatives who were present. They expressed their deep concern and frustration, as has been described by the hon. Lady, at the plight of loved ones stuck in Iraq and Kuwait. The Government have the greatest sympathy for all those involved in this desperately difficult situation. At that meeting suggestions were also made—some of which the hon. Lady incorporated in her remarks—of ways in which we might help to improve matters. I am glad to be able to make a few announcements to the House now.
On mail, we are setting up a Post Office box arrangement in London to speed up deliveries of mail to those stuck in Iraq. I hope to be able to give further details in the next day or two.
Following an approach to British Telecom, the cost of telephone calls to Iraq is being reduced by half. That will enable families to make better contact with their relatives.
The BBC World Service Gulflink programme, which was introduced at the request of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and is a great support to people stranded in Iraq and Kuwait, is being extended, at our instigation, from 15 to 30 minutes on Saturdays and Sundays with effect from next Saturday, 27 October. Now, there will be a half-hour programme every day. That programme—I am sure that the hon. Lady will agree—is making an invaluable contribution to the morale of those in Iraq and Kuwait.
As members of the Gulf Support Group know, comfort parcels are being prepared by the embassy in Baghdad, with assistance from the British community and Foreign and Commonwealth Office finance, for those held at strategic installations in Iraq. They include things such as chocolates, beer, cigarettes, books, toiletries and vitamins. We are working on other matters that were raised at last Saturday's meeting.
The hon. Lady described me as answering a question this morning in an embarrassed fashion. I most certainly was not embarrassed. I was present at Gatwick to welcome my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and the 40 people whose return he had secured. It was a very moving occasion. Earlier in the summer, I had been to Gatwick to meet some of the wives and children who returned. It was obviously a tremendous relief to the individuals concerned and their families back home.
The return of those people and of more than 900 women and children whose evacuations we arranged earlier is simply not enough; it is only a beginning. About 1,400 British nationals are still trapped in the area. In Kuwait, there are about 600 people, at least 520 of whom are at liberty, but mostly they are in hiding. Some 80 people are known to be detained at sites chosen by the Iraqis. In Iraq, there are some 800 people, about 480 of

whom are at liberty but unable to leave, and 306 are detained by the Iraqis at strategic sites. There is no official information on those detained at strategic sites, whom Saddam Hussein is using as a human shield, and our embassy has no access to them. The Iraqis move them from site to site, probably in a deliberate attempt to add to the uncertainty. Nevertheless, we have managed to locate some of them.
The Iraqi authorities' refusal to allow foreign men to leave the country—and, even worse, to hold them against their will at strategic sites, denying them consular access—is a flagrant and inhumane breach of international law. It constitutes an act of international terrorism on an unprecedented scale, and I have no doubt that it is designed with the purpose of intimidating and disorienting communities in the west.
On the diplomatic and political front, we have been immensely active in many areas since the earliest days of the crisis. The United Kingdom was instrumental in drafting many of the Security Council resolutions, which unequivocally condemned Iraq's holding of hostages. We are in touch, of course, with other Governments whose nationals are stuck in Iraq and Kuwait. We have made, and will continue to make at every opportunity, the most vigorous possible representations on behalf of those held to the Iraqi authorities in Baghdad and to the Iraqi ambassador in London.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Minister said that the Government are in touch with other Governments. What advice has he had from the Government of France?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of a statement made by the French Government, in response to an indication from the Iraqi Government that their nationals are to be released, that they are not in a position to negotiate on the release of their nationals. That is the French position, which has been publicly stated.
I am aware that some of those who are most directly involved in this tragedy would like the Government to send an emissary to negotiate with Saddam Hussein for the release of those whom he is holding. There is no possible basis for negotiation, and I have stated the French position. Anything less than complete withdrawal from Kuwait would leave Iraq with a reward for its invasion and for the taking of hostages. That would be in clear contravention of unanimously endorsed United Nations Security Council resolutions.
Nevertheless, we shall do everything in our power to bring about the early and safe release of those who are trapped in Iraq and Kuwait. We shall not rest until that is achieved. I have seen allegations—born no doubt of frustrations with which I deeply sympathise—that the Government are doing nothing. That is most certainly not the case.
Meanwhile, we continue to do everything we can to support those who are trapped and their families. In London we have established at the Foreign Office a centre to provide information and advice to relatives. Its staff continually update lists of the whereabouts of those held. Representatives of the Department of Social Security help to ensure that families quickly get the benefits to which they are entitled. I have already described to the hon. Lady and the House the new measures that we are taking.
In Kuwait, our ambassador and his staff organised the evacuation of several hundred British subjects to Baghdad.


He and his consul—the only two remaining staff—are managing to keep in touch with most members of the British community, both directly and through the wardens system. I am sure that the House and the hon. Lady will join me in congratulating Mr. Michael Weston and Mr. Larry Banks, and in expressing the warmest appreciation and support for the magnificent efforts that both they and the wardens are making to keep those links going.

Ms. Abbott: I join the Minister in congratulating the staff overseas. Earlier, he said that it was most unfair to say that the Government were not prepared to do anything. But he also said the Government were not prepared to negotiate. The fact that they are not prepared to negotiate means, in effect, that they are not prepared to do anything practical to get these people out.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is simply not true to say that we are not prepared to do anything practical. There is an unprecedented barrage of international pressure on Saddam Hussein to withdraw from Kuwait and to release all those who are being kept in that country against their will, and I have already explained the French position to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). All western countries are in agreement about that.

Ms. Abbott: The Minister refers to the French position. What about the Saudi position? From reports of what Saudi officials are saying, it seems to some of us that they can see a midway point—an arrangement whereby Saddam Hussein would be allowed to exit but to hold on to his access to the sea. At Question Time on Tuesday, that notion was squashed by the Prime Minister. There seems to be a negotiating position, but the Government do not want to address it.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Saudi position is not clarified by the statement made two days ago, which was further corrected subsequently, and it does not, therefore, lead to any development on which I can comment.
I want to pay tribute to Mr. Harold Walker, our ambassador in Baghdad, and to his staff. The embassy continues to operate, but with difficulty. Staff are not permitted to travel outside Baghdad. They overcame Iraqi opposition to visit British detainees in the Mansour Melia hotel and are in contact with the rest of the British community in Baghdad. They are providing financial support to Britons who need it. With the involvement of the British community in Baghdad, they are, as I said earlier, organising comfort parcels for detainees.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington for giving the House the opportunity to debate this subject. We have had a useful exchange of views. The welfare of those detained in Iraq and Kuwait is at the forefront of our minds. I hope that my remarks will have shown that we are not merely deeply concerned and sympathetic but that we are doing everything that we possibly can to secure their release, and to provide support for their families in this country.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I am not at all happy with the Minister's answer. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) said, it is all very well to take the Government's

view, but some of us—it is a minority, as I said to the Foreign Secretary at Question Time—think that there must come a time when we have to start talking, because there is no alternative to talking.
The position is not quite as simple as the Government make out. There is a history to it. At this point I must be personal: my father was one of the aides to Sir Percy Cox, the man who set up Kuwait, and he worked for Sir William Willcocks. He gave me Philip Graves's life of Sir Percy, from which it is clear that Kuwait was part of the Ottoman empire. That does not justify the actions of Saddam Hussein; I am merely saying that it is a grey area.
At the Labour party conference, there was a reception for the Labour Friends of Israel, at which Moshe Shahal—himself one of the 120,000 Iraqi Jews—said that, when he was being brought up in the building in Baghdad that is now the French embassy, he learned that all his contemporaries thought that Kuwait was part of Iraq. It is all not so simple as is being suggested.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington, I am deeply concerned about the hostages. I do not think that it can be said that policy takes over everything. What is the alternative to not using the diplomacy of talking? It is war, frankly. The prospect is appalling: every oilfield from Basra north to Kirkuc would be involved.
I am also concerned about the British forces. I am one of the few remaining Desert Rats in the House, having served in the Scots Greys, now the Scots Dragoon Guards. I was tank crew, and I feel for those people: I know their vulnerability. God knows, just putting on those suits in the desert heat msut be bad enough; but, once blood is shed, heaven knows what will happen in Jordan.
It is all very well for the Foreign Secretary to say that he has talked to President Mubarak and I have not. That is true—but what will happen to the Egyptian masses? As a very young Member of Parliament, I was summoned late at night to the house of the late President Nasser, and I shall always remember the force with which he impressed on me the dynamics behind Arab nationalism. If we do not talk, and once any shots are fired, what will happen there? It will explode—and I would not fancy King Husssein's chances much. Indeed, it may be very difficult for the Saudis.
When the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) comes back from Iraq saying that we ought to use diplomatic means, it is clear that he means the diplomatic means of talking. I know that this is an unpopular view, and I do not claim that it is held by more than a minority in the party, but some people—serious people—think that the time has come to begin talking as other countries have talked, even if it means breaking the consensus. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington nodding. The French are taking a very different view, and I bet that French, Italian and German nationals will get out earlier than the British—assuming, that is, that peace is somehow maintained.
A fireman from Bo'ness, in the West Lothian area, is believed to have been taken off the British Airways plane and sent to Basra. Knowing people who are personally involved—as I am sure that the Minister does—brings home the fact that human situations are sometimes as important as wider policy, especially when one doubts whether that wider policy has much chance of long-term success.
It is all very well to put pressure on people; but people who are pressurised react as Londoners did in the blitz. What happened in Hamburg in 1943? The fact is that the bombing made people rally behind Hitler, although they were not supporters of the Nazis. It is a human reaction. Once we start thinking that there is any kind of military option, and start threatening people with it, we shall be in considerable difficulty—not least the hostages whom my hon. Friend has represented so ably tonight.
We must look again at the matter, in a completely different way. I know that I shall be told by some people, including members of my own party, that I am simply creating difficulties and showing weakness; but those who have had some experience of the Arab world——

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at four minutes past Two o'clock.